القائمة
Use when receiving research review feedback, before implementing suggestions — requires verification against actual data and scientific reasoning, not performative agreement
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Use during or after manuscript writing to verify every quantitative claim traces to actual data, every figure is script-generated, and all results including negative ones are reported
Use when starting any conversation involving research, hypotheses, experiments, data analysis, scientific claims, or manuscript writing — establishes how to find and use Eureka research skills
Use when a research design has been approved and needs to be broken into executable experiment steps — the research equivalent of an implementation plan
Use when creating, updating, or reviewing a research figure (plot, chart, brain map, heatmap, schematic) — guides chart-type selection, typography, colorblind-safe palette, layout, and journal-specific export specs. Dispatches a figure-reviewer subagent after rendering. Complements claims-audit (which checks figure integrity) by checking figure design.
Use when running any experiment or analysis — hypothesis and analysis plan must be registered before seeing results, the scientific equivalent of test-driven development
Use when writing a research manuscript — guides section-by-section writing with prerequisite gates, citation discipline, number traceability, and per-section subagent review. Activated after experiment results are reviewed and before claims-audit.
| name | receiving-research-review |
| description | Use when receiving research review feedback, before implementing suggestions — requires verification against actual data and scientific reasoning, not performative agreement |
Handle review feedback with scientific rigor. Verify claims against actual data before acting. Push back on incorrect assessments with evidence.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Evidence before agreement. Scientific correctness over social comfort.
When you receive a research review report:
Never respond to a review with:
These are performative, not scientific. The reviewer may be wrong. Verify first.
If ANY item in the review is unclear:
STOP. Do not implement anything.
Ask for clarification on ALL unclear items before proceeding. Why: review items may be related. Partial understanding leads to wrong implementations that waste time and may introduce new errors.
Push back (with evidence) when:
How to push back:
Before implementing any suggestion from an external reviewer:
After addressing CRITICAL and MAJOR issues:
eureka:requesting-research-revieweureka:requesting-research-review returns feedbackeureka:requesting-research-review (for re-review after fixes)