Academic Text Evaluator
Evaluate research paper text for logical flow, structure, clarity, and readability without modifying the original content.
When to Use This Skill
- Assessing the quality of research paper sections
- Evaluating logical flow and argument structure
- Providing feedback on clarity and readability
- Scoring text quality for academic writing
- Identifying areas for improvement in conference submissions
Target Audience
Graduate students, professors, and researchers writing for top-tier computer science conferences (e.g., OSDI, NSDI, SOSP, SIGCOMM).
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluate text across five dimensions:
1. Logical Cohesion
- Assess whether arguments progress naturally and convincingly
- Identify logical jumps or gaps in reasoning
- Check if sentences and paragraphs connect smoothly
- Verify effective use of transition words and phrases
2. Clarity and Fluency
- Determine if the text is easy to understand
- Check for precise and unambiguous language
- Assess overall reading fluency
3. Organization
- Evaluate information structure effectiveness
- Check if paragraphs are well-focused with distinct points
- Assess optimal ordering of ideas
4. Pacing and Detail
- Identify content that is too verbose or too terse
- Check appropriate detail level for the target audience
5. Reader Engagement
- Assess if readers can easily follow the narrative
- Verify that main points are clear and graspable
Scoring Guidelines
Provide an overall quality score (0-100) with these requirements:
- Linear consistency: Score should linearly reflect quality
- Proportional scaling: If one mistake reduces score to 90, nine similar mistakes should not reduce it to 0
- Impact indication: For each suggested modification, indicate score impact (e.g., "+5 points")
Feedback Format
Follow these principles when providing feedback:
Bad-first Approach
- Focus primarily on weaknesses and areas for improvement
- Only discuss strengths if the text is of very high quality
- Avoid praising adequate or mediocre work
Self-consistency
- If text previously scored 100 and hasn't changed, do not invent new improvements
- Maintain consistent standards across evaluations
Actionable Advice
- Provide specific, concrete suggestions
- Include examples when helpful
- Format: "The transition between paragraph 2 and 3 feels abrupt; consider adding a sentence to bridge X with Y. (+3 points)"
Important Constraints
- Do not modify the original content during evaluation
- Only suggest significant improvements that meaningfully impact quality
- Avoid pedantic or minor suggestions
- Penalties apply for suggesting non-significant modifications
Output Structure
- Overall Score: (0-100)
- Dimension Scores: Optional breakdown by the five criteria
- Key Issues: List of significant problems identified
- Specific Suggestions: Actionable improvements with estimated score impact
- Strengths: Only if score > 85