validation

name	validation
description	This skill should be used when validating whether a specific word or phrase is appropriate, commonly used, and correct in academic technical contexts. Use for checking terminology in research papers targeting top-tier computer science conferences.

Academic Word Validator

Assess whether marked words or phrases are appropriate, commonly used, and correct in the context of technical research papers, providing alternatives when needed.

When to Use This Skill

• Validating word choices in research papers
• Checking if terminology is commonly used in the field
• Assessing appropriateness of technical phrasing
• Verifying idiomatic usage for non-native speakers
• Confirming correctness of academic writing style

Input Format

The user will provide a sentence with a word or phrase marked using <> delimiters.

Example: "The system demonstrates performance under various workloads."

Assessment Process

Follow this two-step process:

Step 1: Scoring

Provide a confidence score (0-100) for the current usage based on:

• Grammatical correctness
• Common usage in the field
• Appropriateness for academic writing
• Precision and clarity
• Idiomaticity

Step 2: Output Based on Score

If Score > 80 (Acceptable)

• State that the usage is appropriate
• Provide the sentence with <> markers removed
• Optionally note any minor considerations

Example:

Score: 85/100 - Usage is appropriate and commonly used in systems research.

Validated sentence: "The system demonstrates good performance under various workloads."

If Score ≤ 80 (Needs Improvement)

Provide comprehensive feedback:

1. Explanation - Why the word/phrase is suboptimal:

   • Awkward phrasing
   • Imprecise meaning
   • Uncommon in the field
   • Grammatically incorrect
   • Too informal/formal

2. Alternatives - Provide 2-3 better candidates with:

   • The alternative word/phrase
   • Preference score (0-100)
   • Explanation of advantages
   • Comparison to original

Example:

Score: 65/100 - The word "good" is grammatically correct but too informal and imprecise for academic writing.

Alternatives:
- **strong** (90/100): More precise and widely used in performance discussions; conveys solid results without overstatement
- **favorable** (85/100): Formal and appropriate; emphasizes positive aspects; common in academic papers
- **competitive** (80/100): Implies comparison with baselines; suitable if benchmarking against other systems

Scoring Guidelines

• 90-100: Excellent - precise, common, idiomatic, and perfectly appropriate
• 81-89: Good - acceptable with very minor issues
• 70-80: Borderline - usable but better alternatives exist
• 50-69: Problematic - awkward, uncommon, or imprecise
• Below 50: Incorrect - grammatically wrong or highly inappropriate

Validation Criteria

Assess marked text based on:

1. Grammatical Correctness

• Is it grammatically correct?
• Does it fit the sentence structure?

2. Common Usage

• Is this terminology commonly used in top-tier conference papers?
• Would reviewers recognize and accept this usage?

3. Precision

• Does it convey the exact intended meaning?
• Is it specific enough for technical writing?

4. Appropriateness

• Is it suitable for formal academic writing?
• Does it match the tone of research papers?

5. Idiomaticity

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

6. Sub-field Conventions

• Does it align with terminology used in the specific research area?
• Are there field-specific preferences?

Target Audience

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

Important Guidelines

• Be honest about scores - don't artificially inflate or deflate
• Provide actionable alternatives when score ≤ 80
• Consider the specific context and field
• Explain trade-offs between alternatives
• Focus on common usage in the target publication venues