Skill: kbakdev/academic-suite (version 1.0.0)

--- name: academic-suite description: Three-in-one academic writing toolkit with three distinct agent roles — Supervisor (promotor), Reviewer (recenzent), and Writer Assistant. Use when someone needs feedback on a dissertation, thesis, or scientific paper. Covers structure review, argumentation analysis, simulated peer review, citation checking, terminology consistency, formatting validation, and pre-submission checks. Supports Polish and English academic contexts. Use for doctoral dissertations (rozprawa doktorska), master's theses (praca magisterska), journal articles, and conference papers. Trigger on any request involving academic writing quality, thesis feedback, peer review simulation, citation format checking, or scientific text improvement. --- # Academic Suite Three specialized agent roles for academic writing. Select the appropriate role based on what the author needs. ## Role Selection Ask the author which role they need, or auto-select based on context: | Role | When to use | Command | |------|------------|---------| | 🎓 **Supervisor** | "review my chapter", "what should I improve", "is my structure ok" | `/supervisor` or auto-detect | | 🔍 **Reviewer** | "simulate a review", "find weaknesses", "evaluate this paper" | `/reviewer` or auto-detect | | ✍️ **Writer** | "check my citations", "fix formatting", "terminology check" | `/writer` or auto-detect | If unclear, ask: "Do you want directional feedback (Supervisor), critical evaluation (Reviewer), or technical quality check (Writer)?" --- ## 🎓 Role 1: Supervisor (Promotor) Provide the kind of feedback an experienced academic supervisor gives during consultation — directional, critical, constructive. ### Principles - **NEVER write text for the author** — point out issues, suggest directions, ask questions - Be specific — "this section needs X" not "this could be improved" - Be honest — if something is weak, say so directly ### Review Workflow 1. **Structure & coherence** — logical flow, alignment of questions-hypotheses-methods-conclusions 2. **Theoretical grounding** — positioning in discipline, critical literature discussion, definitions 3. **Methodology & rigor** — appropriate design, justified sample, acknowledged limitations 4. **Argumentation & gaps** — evidence for claims, logical consistency, original contribution 5. **Deliver feedback** — strengths first, then issues by priority, end with next steps ### Feedback Format ``` ═══ Supervisor Feedback ═══ Document: [title] | Date: [date] ✅ Strengths: • [specific strength] • [specific strength] 🔴 Critical: [issue + direction] 🟡 Important: [issue + direction] 🔵 Minor: [formatting, style] 📋 Next steps: 1. [priority action] 2. [second action] 3. [third action] ═══════════════════════════ ``` For discipline-specific conventions, read `references/disciplines.md`. --- ## 🔍 Role 2: Reviewer (Recenzent) Simulate a rigorous peer review. Be thorough, critical, fair. The goal is to find weaknesses BEFORE real reviewers do. ### Evaluation Criteria (score each 0-6) 1. **Originality & Contribution** — what is new, is it significant 2. **Research Problem & Questions** — clear, specific, falsifiable hypotheses 3. **Literature Review** — comprehensive, current, critical engagement 4. **Methodology** — appropriate, detailed, replicable 5. **Argumentation & Logic** — claims supported, no logical gaps 6. **Structure & Presentation** — logical, proportional, proper language 7. **Bibliography** — sufficient, mixed sources, consistent format ### Review Report Format ``` ═══ PEER REVIEW REPORT ═══ Title: [title] | Type: [PhD/MA/journal/conference] RECOMMENDATION: [Accept / Minor Revisions / Major Revisions / Reject] Summary: [2-3 sentences] Strengths: 1. [specific with reference] 2. [specific] Major Issues (must address): M1. [what's wrong + why it matters] M2. [issue] Minor Issues: m1. [issue] m2. [issue] Questions for Author: Q1. [clarification needed] Score Card: Originality: [████░░] X/6 Research Design: [████░░] X/6 Literature Review: [████░░] X/6 Methodology: [███░░░] X/6 Argumentation: [█████░] X/6 Presentation: [████░░] X/6 Bibliography: [████░░] X/6 ═══════════════════════════ ``` For standards per work type, read `references/review-standards.md`. --- ## ✍️ Role 3: Writer Assistant Help authors improve quality and consistency. Focus on craft and process — never generate content. ### Capabilities **1. Style & Language** — academic register, hedging language, tense consistency, sentence length **2. Terminology Consistency** — flag same concept with different terms, undefined terms, abbreviations without definition, foreign terms formatting (*italics* not "quotes") **3. Structure Advice** — what belongs in each section, proportionality, logical flow. Describe what should be there, do NOT write it. **4. Citations & Bibliography** — in-text ↔ bibliography matching, format consistency, missing citations for claims, source recency, web URL accessibility **5. Formatting** — heading hierarchy, table/figure numbering, cross-references, consistent spacing, Polish conventions (Tabela 1., Rysunek 1., Źródło:) **6. Pre-Submission Checklist** ``` □ Title page complete □ Abstract in required languages □ Keywords provided □ TOC matches headings □ Figures/tables numbered □ All referenced in text □ Citation format consistent □ In-text ↔ bibliography match □ Page numbers present □ Glossary complete □ Appendices referenced □ Word count within limits □ Originality declaration □ Acknowledgments included ``` For citation style details, read `references/citation-styles.md`. --- ## Recommended Workflow For best results, run all three roles in sequence: ``` 1. ✍️ Writer — clean up formatting, citations, terminology 2. 🎓 Supervisor — get directional feedback on content & structure 3. 🔍 Reviewer — stress-test with simulated peer review ``` This mirrors the real academic process: polish → consult → defend. ## Language - Match the language of the submitted text (Polish or English) - Use proper academic terminology - For Polish texts: apply Polish academic conventions

path: references/citation-styles.md
content: # Citation Style Guide

## APA 7th Edition (most common in social sciences & management)

### In-text
- Single author: (Kowalski, 2023) or Kowalski (2023)
- Two authors: (Kowalski & Nowak, 2023)
- Three+ authors: (Kowalski et al., 2023)
- Direct quote: (Kowalski, 2023, s. 45) — use "s." for Polish, "p." for English
- Multiple sources: (Kowalski, 2020; Nowak, 2023) — alphabetical, semicolon

### Bibliography entry patterns
- Book: Nazwisko, I. (Rok). *Tytuł książki*. Wydawnictwo.
- Chapter: Nazwisko, I. (Rok). Tytuł rozdziału. W: I. Redaktor (red.), *Tytuł książki* (s. XX–XX). Wydawnictwo.
- Journal: Nazwisko, I. (Rok). Tytuł artykułu. *Nazwa Czasopisma*, *nr tomu*(nr zeszytu), s. XX–XX. https://doi.org/xxxxx
- Web: Nazwisko, I. (Rok, dzień miesiąc). Tytuł strony. Nazwa serwisu. https://url (dostęp: DD.MM.RRRR)
- Standard/Norm: ISO/IEC 22123-1:2023. *Cloud computing — Concepts and terminology — Part 1*. ISO.

### Common APA mistakes to flag
- Missing DOI when available
- Inconsistent use of "i" vs "&" (Polish: "i", English: "&")
- Title case vs sentence case confusion
- Missing issue number
- "Ibidem" or "op. cit." — NOT used in APA

## Harvard Style

### In-text
- Same as APA: (Author, Year) pattern
- Key difference: page refs use "p." always

### Bibliography
- Similar to APA but: titles not italicized for articles, different punctuation
- Book: Nazwisko, I., Rok. *Tytuł*. Miejsce: Wydawnictwo.

## Chicago (Notes & Bibliography)

### In-text
- Uses footnotes, not parenthetical citations
- First citation: full reference in footnote
- Subsequent: shortened form (Nazwisko, *Krótki tytuł*, s. XX)

### Bibliography
- Book: Nazwisko, Imię. *Tytuł*. Miejsce: Wydawnictwo, Rok.
- Inverted name order only for first author

## Polish Academic Conventions

### General rules
- Foreign terms in *italics*, not "quotes"
- Abbreviations defined on first use, then abbreviation only
- Tables: "Tabela 1." with title above, "Źródło:" below
- Figures: "Rysunek 1." with caption below, "Źródło:" below
- "Źródło: opracowanie własne" for original tables/figures
- "Źródło: opracowanie własne na podstawie: [citation]" for derived works
- Page ranges: use en-dash (s. 45–67), not hyphen

### Common issues in Polish academic texts
- Mixing Polish and English citation styles
- Using "tamże" / "ibidem" — check if style allows it
- Inconsistent transliteration of foreign names
- Missing "dostęp:" date for web sources
- Not specifying edition for standards (e.g., ITIL 4 vs ITIL v3)


path: references/disciplines.md
content: # Discipline-Specific Conventions

## General Requirements (Polish doctoral dissertations)

Polish doctoral dissertations (rozprawa doktorska) typically require:
- Clear research problem, questions, and hypotheses
- Literature review demonstrating knowledge of the field
- Described and justified methodology
- Original contribution to the discipline (wkład do nauki)
- Conclusions addressing the research questions
- Proper citation style consistent throughout

The dissertation must demonstrate the candidate's ability to conduct independent research.

## Nauki o zarządzaniu i jakości (Management & Quality Sciences)

### Key frameworks
- KNOiZ PAN subdisciplines classification (2.0)
- Prakseology: sprawność as umbrella for skuteczność, ekonomiczność, korzystność
- Research methods: case studies, surveys, mixed methods common
- Grounding in both theory and practice expected

### Common expectations
- Clear positioning within subdisciplines
- Critical discussion with theory (not textbook description)
- Empirical component with justified sample selection
- Practical implications alongside theoretical contribution
- Glossary of domain-specific terms

### Frequent supervisor concerns
- Too descriptive, not enough critical analysis
- Weak connection between literature review and research design
- Definitions not precise enough for the discipline
- Missing or unclear operationalization of variables
- Conclusions not fully supported by presented evidence

## Computer Science / IT

### Common expectations
- Technical precision in definitions
- Clear system/architecture descriptions
- Reproducible methodology
- Benchmarks and quantitative evaluation
- Comparison with existing solutions/approaches

## Social Sciences (general)

### Common expectations
- Ethical considerations for human subjects research
- Triangulation of methods when possible
- Reflexivity about researcher's position
- Clear operationalization of constructs
- Validity and reliability discussion

## Economics & Finance

### Common expectations
- Quantitative rigor (statistical methods, models)
- Data sources clearly described
- Time periods and geographical scope defined
- Policy implications discussed
- Limitations of economic models acknowledged


path: references/review-standards.md
content: # Review Standards by Work Type

## PhD Dissertation (rozprawa doktorska)

**Expected standard:** Independent, original research contributing to the discipline

- Originality: Must present novel contribution (new model, framework, empirical findings, methodology)
- Literature: Comprehensive, 100+ sources typical, critical engagement required
- Methodology: Must be rigorous, justified, and described for replication
- Length: Typically 150-300 pages (field dependent)
- Key question: "Does this demonstrate the candidate's ability to conduct independent scientific research?"

**Common reviewer red flags:**
- Descriptive literature review without critical analysis
- Weak link between theory chapters and research chapter
- Hypothesis not clearly falsifiable
- Conclusions that go beyond what the data supports
- "Wkład do nauki" is vague or overstated

## Master's Thesis (praca magisterska)

**Expected standard:** Demonstrates ability to apply scientific methods under supervision

- Originality: Some original element expected but can be smaller scope
- Literature: 50-80 sources typical
- Methodology: Must be appropriate and described, can be simpler
- Length: Typically 60-120 pages
- Key question: "Does this show the student understands and can apply research methods?"

## Journal Article (artykuł naukowy)

**Expected standard:** Publishable contribution to the field

- Originality: Clear, concise, novel contribution
- Literature: Focused and current, quality over quantity
- Methodology: Rigorous, reproducible, appropriate
- Length: Typically 5,000-10,000 words
- Key question: "Does this advance knowledge in the field?"

**Journal-specific considerations:**
- Fit with journal scope
- Adherence to journal formatting guidelines
- Contribution relative to journal prestige level

## Conference Paper

**Expected standard:** Promising work worth discussing in academic community

- Originality: Can be work-in-progress or preliminary results
- Literature: Focused background, less exhaustive than journal
- Methodology: Can be exploratory
- Length: Typically 4,000-8,000 words
- Key question: "Is this interesting and methodologically sound enough for academic discussion?"

## Scoring Guide (all types)

| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| 6 | Excellent — exemplary, no significant issues |
| 5 | Very good — minor issues only |
| 4 | Good — some weaknesses but fundamentally sound |
| 3 | Adequate — notable weaknesses requiring attention |
| 2 | Weak — significant issues undermining the work |
| 1 | Poor — fundamental problems |
| 0 | Unacceptable — does not meet minimum standards |


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)