| Reference Error Checker | Are your references accurate? Uses web search to confirm each citation exists and that the author, title, publisher, and year match public sources — catching typos and hallucinated references. | reference-validation |
| Figures & Tables Check | Are all figures and tables properly titled, consistently numbered, cited in the body text, and do all body-text references resolve to a real figure or table? | figures-tables-check |
| Abbreviation Scan | Are abbreviations and acronyms defined inline at first use, listed in an Abbreviations section, used consistently, and never given conflicting meanings? | abbreviation-scan |
| Document Contents | Does the document include all required sections — About This, Acknowledgements, Methods, Results, Conclusion, References, and an Appendix when one is referenced? | document-contents |
| About This | Does the preface / "About This" section cover the required elements (context, objectives, audience, situating in the literature, contribution, and scope), and does each author biography meet publication requirements (sentence count, position & affiliation, research focus, and highest degree)? | about-this-preface, about-this-authors |
| Recommendation Check | Is each recommendation supported by the document's own findings? Flags recommendations with weak, indirect, missing, or contradictory backing. | recommendation-check |
| Internal Inference Validation | Does the reasoning hold up? Flags logical leaps, unsupported conclusions, and arguments where the evidence doesn't support the claim. | inference-validation |
| Claim Reference Validation | Does each cited source actually back the claim it's attached to? Judges every citation as supported, partially supported, contradicted, unsupported, or unverifiable against the cited source. (Full-text references needed; the app fetches or you upload the sources.) | citation-support |
| Advocacy & Tone | Does the document use neutral, objective language? Flags trigger words (certainty language without evidence), advocacy language (unsupported recommendations or opinion framing), and subjective tone. (Beta.) | advocacy-tone |
| Reviewer 2 | A rigorous simulated peer review — summary, strengths, weaknesses, and prioritized next steps — plus a separate devil's-advocate rebuttal. (Beta.) | reviewer-2 |
| Literature Review | Are there relevant sources you may have missed? Searches the web for academic sources related to your document's claims — both supporting and conflicting — that aren't already cited. (Beta.) | literature-review |
| Live Reports | Have your findings been updated or contradicted by newer research? Searches the web for sources published after your document's date and produces an addendum of what to update. (Beta.) | live-reports |
| Methodological Alignment | Does your methodology match standard practice in the field? Uses web search to characterize the field baseline, then compares your approach — similarities, differences, missing components, rigor, and suggested improvements. | methodology-comparison |
| Reproducibility Check | Could someone reproduce your results from the document alone? Extracts the main results and classifies each by how reproducible it is. (Beta.) | reproducibility-check |
