Rigorous academic peer review in the voice of a seasoned professor. Two verdict modes (paper, homework), five alternative workflows (committee panel, fact-check audit, plagiarism-check, draft thinking-partner, presentation feedback), plus iterate mode for post-review dialogue. Auto-detects Hebrew or English and the work's academic domain (any field) and applies rigor criteria for that field. Annotates source documents at the relevant text / shape / page locations and returns a reviewed file: .docx (inline comments + tracked changes), .pdf (sticky notes + highlights), .pptx (native comments on slides / shapes), .tex (LaTeX reviewer comments). Use this skill when the user invokes /peer-review, asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a paper, thesis, essay, dissertation chapter, problem set, course assignment, conference talk, or slide deck. Also for panel-style review, fact-check or plagiarism audit, generative feedback on unfinished work, presentation feedback, or continuing a prior review.
Manage the research project's vault — the clean, visible, templated project folder (research/<project>/) where every file lives in a numbered lifecycle-stage place, plus the knowledge layer (canonical facts like sample size / IRB# / journal, one shared bibliography, decisions log, open questions, glossary, voice profile, entities — pseudonyms only, never PII). Initializes the folder from a template, shows a summary, ORGANIZES loose files into the right stage folders, AUDITS every artifact against the vault to catch drift (the sample size in the abstract vs the methods), and adds/resolves knowledge. Files stay the source of truth; the vault is the organized home the whole skill network reads and writes. Trigger when: user mentions "vault", "project folder", "organize my research", "research vault", "project knowledge", "audit my project", "check for inconsistencies", "is my sample size consistent", "project facts", "what's in the vault", "tidy my project", or runs /vault.
Format citations and bibliographies in any major academic style — APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago (notes-bibliography and author-date), Harvard, Vancouver, IEEE, AMA, and discipline-specific journal styles. Converts between formats, builds reference lists from raw input, validates DOIs, and generates BibTeX/RIS exports. Trigger when: user asks to "format this citation", "convert to APA", "bibliography in Chicago", "reference list", "BibTeX", "fix my references", "is this APA correct", or runs /cite.
End-to-end quantitative data work — cleaning, exploration, statistical testing, modeling, visualization, and reproducible scripting in Python or R. Handles messy CSVs, survey data, time series, panel data, and small-to-medium datasets. Produces analysis scripts and a written interpretation. Trigger when: user mentions "clean this data", "analyze", "statistics", "regression", "EDA", "explore the data", "fit a model", "visualize", "summary stats", "hypothesis test", "ANOVA", "t-test", "correlation", "Python script", "R script", "pandas", "tidyverse", or runs /analyze.
Act as a research ethics committee — stress-test a protocol the way an IRB / REC / HREC would. Reviews informed consent, risk-benefit balance, vulnerable populations, data privacy, deception, debriefing, payment, dual-use risks, AI/LLM use in research, and equity in recruitment. Produces a committee-style decision letter with required revisions, recommended changes, and approval pathway. Useful before IRB submission, when responding to IRB feedback, when drafting ethics sections of a paper or grant, or when a protocol changes mid-study. Trigger when: user mentions "ethics review", "IRB", "REC", "HREC", "ethics committee", "ethics statement", "informed consent", "is this study ethical", "vulnerable population", "deception in research", "Belmont", "Helsinki", "GDPR research", "ethics approval", "ethics application", or runs /ethics.
Draft sections of a grant proposal — specific aims / lay summary / significance / innovation / approach / broader impacts / budget justification / data management plan / biosketch — adapted to the funder's format and review criteria. Supports NSF, NIH (R01, R21, R03, F31, F32, K-series), ERC (Starting, Consolidator, Advanced), Wellcome, Horizon Europe, NSF GRFP, foundation grants, and other major schemes. Works from research-brainstorm and methodology-advisor outputs, plus the funder's published criteria. Trigger when: user mentions "grant proposal", "specific aims", "NSF", "NIH", "ERC", "Wellcome", "Horizon Europe", "research proposal", "fellowship application", "biosketch", "broader impacts", "data management plan", "lay summary", "case for support", or runs /grant.
Conduct rigorous, fact-checked academic literature reviews. Synthesizes sources, traces citation chains, flags weak claims, and produces structured outputs (narrative, systematic, scoping, or thematic). Trigger when: user asks for a "literature review", "lit review", "background research", "state of the field", "what does the research say about…", "summarize the literature on…", "find sources on…", or runs /lit-review. Works from sources the user provides (PDFs, links, citations) AND from web/database search when allowed.
Draft long-form manuscript sections — abstract, introduction, related work, methods, results, discussion, limitations, conclusion — from a methodology document and an analysis report. Adapts to the target journal's structure (IMRaD, narrative, mixed) and word limits. Preserves the existing manuscript's voice, enforces hard per-section word budgets, holds to an academic register (no colloquialisms, no conversational openers, no vague quantifiers), and grounds every new idea in the user's bibliography or flags it for literature search. Drafts in the language of the existing manuscript (English, Hebrew, etc.). Trigger when: user mentions "draft my paper", "write the intro", "write the methods section", "write the results section", "draft the discussion", "extend my discussion chapter", "write the abstract", "manuscript draft", "section draft", "first draft of paper", or runs /draft.