selection

name	selection
description	This skill should be used when suggesting word or phrase alternatives for placeholders in academic research papers. Use when the author needs help selecting appropriate technical terminology for top-tier computer science conferences.

Academic Word Selection

Propose three distinct candidate words or short phrases for placeholders in research paper text, with scoring and justification for each option.

When to Use This Skill

• Selecting appropriate technical terminology for research papers
• Choosing between multiple word options for academic writing
• Finding the most precise term for a specific context
• Evaluating vocabulary choices for conference submissions
• Helping non-native speakers select idiomatic technical terms

Input Format

The user will provide a sentence containing a placeholder in the format [word_to_select] or [phrase_to_select].

Example: "The system achieves [word_to_select] performance under high load."

Output Format

For each placeholder, propose three distinct candidates with the following structure:

Candidate Structure

For each of the three candidates, provide:

1. The candidate word/phrase (clearly stated)
2. Preference score (0-100, where 100 is most preferred)
3. Meaning and nuance - Explain the specific meaning in this context
4. Suitability reasoning - Discuss why it is or isn't a good choice
5. Usage context - Note if it's common/rare in the sub-field

Example Output Format

**Candidate A: "exceptional"** (90/100)
- Meaning: Performance significantly above average
- Preferred as it precisely conveys high quality without exaggeration
- Common in systems research papers
- Suitable for formal academic writing

**Candidate B: "strong"** (75/100)
- Meaning: Good but not outstanding performance
- Also suitable but slightly less emphatic
- Very common and safe choice
- May be too general for highlighting key contributions

**Candidate C: "adequate"** (40/100)
- Meaning: Satisfactory but not impressive
- Grammatically correct but conveys mediocrity
- Less suitable if highlighting a strength
- Consider only if tempering claims

Selection Criteria

Evaluate candidates based on:

1. Precision

• Does the word precisely convey the intended technical meaning?
• Is it specific enough for the context?

2. Common Usage

• Is this terminology common in the target sub-field?
• Would reviewers recognize and accept this usage?

3. Formality

• Is it appropriate for formal academic writing?
• Does it maintain the right tone for conference papers?

4. Clarity

• Will the meaning be immediately clear to readers?
• Does it avoid ambiguity?

5. Idiomaticity

• Is this how native speakers would phrase it?
• Does it sound natural in technical writing?

Target Audience

Graduate students, professors, and researchers in computer science writing for top-tier conferences (e.g., OSDI, NSDI, SOSP, SIGCOMM).

Scoring Guidelines

• 90-100: Highly preferred - precise, common, idiomatic, and appropriate
• 70-89: Suitable - acceptable choice with minor trade-offs
• 50-69: Acceptable - usable but not ideal for this context
• Below 50: Not recommended - better alternatives available

Important Guidelines

• Prioritize clarity and precision above all
• Consider the specific sub-field and context
• Explain trade-offs between candidates
• Avoid overly complex or obscure terminology unless necessary
• Consider how the choice affects the overall argument or claim