rubric-writer

To generate a peer review report, you synthesize the extracted claims and missing evidence into a structured evaluation. The rubric-writer skill automates this by cross-referencing novelty, soundness, clarity, and impact criteria to produce a grounded referee report with actionable feedback.

A rubric-based referee report evaluates academic writing by linking critiques directly to predefined criteria and identified evidence gaps. It ensures actionable feedback by providing specific, minimal fixes for major concerns rather than offering generic comments on the submission.

Yes, generating a rubric-based evaluation requires upstream artifacts. You must provide the extracted claims and missing evidence files, as the peer review report synthesizes these inputs to ground its critiques and cover all evaluation criteria.

You can use it for academic writing evaluation, but it is designed for the final stage of a peer-review pipeline. It requires upstream files containing extracted claims and evidence gaps to synthesize a professional referee report, rather than generating reviews from unprocessed text.

The best way to automate referee report generation is to ground the evaluation in specific extracted claims and evidence gaps. By synthesizing these inputs against a rubric of novelty, soundness, clarity, and impact, the system avoids generic comments and provides actionable fixes.

Your peer review report may lack constructive feedback if it is not grounded in extracted claims and missing evidence. A rubric-based evaluation synthesizes these specific inputs to provide actionable, minimal fixes for major concerns instead of generic observations.