Supervisor-Skills

Structures Benchmark and Evaluation papers using the five-pillar framework (Research Gap, Construction Pipeline, Evaluation Framework, Empirical Findings, optional Companion Method). Returns a completeness audit, a six-part Introduction logic chain, a Section 2-7 skeleton, and a pre-submission checklist. Use when writing a benchmark paper, structuring a benchmark paper, checking whether a benchmark idea is substantive, drafting a benchmark Introduction, or planning the data-construction pipeline or experiments.

Runs a deep, survey-grade literature investigation on a research topic: freezes research questions, searches from multiple adversarial perspectives, verifies every citation, synthesizes evidence into a MECE taxonomy with in-sentence cross-comparison, and answers the research questions in an evidence-first report. Use when the user asks for a literature review, a survey of a field, research landscape mapping, or a deep dive into what is known about a topic.

Reconstructs reference images into high-fidelity, editable Draw.io files with rendered previews: native Draw.io elements carry text and structure, SVG covers simple icons that match the reference, and cropped or transparent PNGs preserve complex visuals. Use when the user wants a diagram image, research figure, architecture diagram, slide, UI screenshot, or image folder turned into `.drawio` XML; batch requests use a manifest with bounded parallelism when available and a full-fidelity serial fallback otherwise.

Advises on the design of the three core figures in a technical paper: the Motivated Example (Figure 1), the Solution Overview (Methodology), and the Experimental Results figures. Recommends the right design paradigm, layout, labelling, and tool for each figure type, then runs a quality-control audit. Use when the user asks to 'design a figure', 'draw Figure 1', 'plot experiment results', 'choose the right chart type', 'which figure tool to use', or 'figure looks unprofessional'.

Evaluates a preliminary research idea against a five-dimension framework (Higher, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Broader) plus idea-lifecycle and student-capability matching, paradigm-shift probing, and a fatal-flaws audit. Returns a reviewer-style verdict; non-STEM ideas route to substitute frameworks. Use when the user has a draft research idea and asks whether it is worth pursuing, asks to 'evaluate this idea', 'score this idea', 'assess feasibility', 'novelty check', 'is this a good research direction', or before committing to a paper scope.

Drafts the Introduction prose for a technical paper, guided internally by a six-paragraph flowchart: background and running example, existing limitations, problem essence and goal, key challenges, solution overview, contributions. Positions the paper as Technique or New Problem/Setting, aligns contributions with challenges, and weaves verified citations. Outputs flowing prose by default, or an outline on request. Use when the user asks to draft, outline, or restructure an Introduction.

Polishes existing academic prose while preserving the author's meaning: grammar and flow repair, tone calibration against evidence strength, AI-tone removal, and Chinese-to-English rewriting at submission quality. Never fabricates data, citations, or claims, and flags any edit that could change scientific meaning. Use when the user asks to polish a draft, fix awkward wording, remove AI flavor, translate a Chinese manuscript into publishable English, or tone down overclaiming.

Drafts publishable paper prose from the author's own materials, from a single paragraph to a full manuscript, across STEM and non-STEM fields. Every factual claim traces to user input, verified retrieval, or field common knowledge; citations pass an independent verification ladder; delivery is clean prose with zero placeholder tags. Use when the user asks to write a section, turn an idea or results into paper text, or draft a full paper.

Runs a pre-submission review of a technical paper across five dimensions: macro logic, writing details, English grammar, LaTeX formatting, and figure quality. Uses a reviewer-style severity taxonomy (CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR) and flags banned AI-tone vocabulary and em-dash misuse. Use when the user asks to 'review this paper', 'audit before submission', 'check the draft', 'find issues', 'proofread', or within one week of a submission deadline.

Provides actionable peer-review rebuttal guidance (not full rebuttal prose) using conditional persuasion P(Z|X,Y): match reviewer mindset X, recommend strategy Y, optionally ground in manuscript evidence and similar successful historical (review, rebuttal) pairs. Use when the user pastes reviewer comments, asks for rebuttal help, rebuttal guidance, response to reviewers, how to reply to R1.W2, OpenReview rebuttal, or the reviewer ignored the rebuttal.

Structures a technical paper's full logical skeleton using a thinking-template table (research background, limitations, key idea or goal, challenges, methodology modules, contributions), positions the paper as Technique or New Problem/Setting, and runs a four-point self-consistency check. Use when the user is brainstorming a paper, discussing progress with an advisor, or planning the paper before drafting. Also use for 'paper skeleton', 'paper logic chain', 'thinking template', 'paper-structure planning'.

Guides AI-assisted research across three sub-flows, Vibe Coding, Vibe Figure, and Vibe Writing, with behavioural rules that keep the user in charge of academic judgment while delegating mechanical work to AI. Recommends the right tool (Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, Figma, Gemini) for the current stage. Use when the user asks 'how to use AI for research', 'Vibe Coding tips', 'AI-assisted writing workflow', 'which AI tool for this', or starts an AI-assisted work session.