Evidence Insight

scholar-evaluation

86100Total Score

Core Capability

87 / 100

Functional Suitability

11 / 12

Reliability

10 / 12

Performance & Context

8 / 8

Agent Usability

14 / 16

Human Usability

8 / 8

Security

9 / 12

Maintainability

10 / 12

Agent-Specific

17 / 20

Medical Task

15 / 20 Passed

86Evaluate a research paper, thesis, or proposal and produce a structured critique with scores

3/4

86Generate actionable revision recommendations across core academic writing dimensions

3/4

86Automatic text extraction from PDF/DOCX/TXT via scripts/extract_text.py (intended as the first step for file inputs)

3/4

86ScholarEval rubric with 8 evaluation dimensions (see references/evaluation_framework.md)

3/4

86End-to-end case for Automatic text extraction from PDF/DOCX/TXT via scripts/extract_text.py (intended as the first step for file inputs)

3/4

Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration

Skill Veto✓ All 4 gates passed

✓

Operational Stability

System remains stable across varied inputs and edge cases

PASS

✓

Structural Consistency

Output structure conforms to expected skill contract format

PASS

✓

Result Determinism

Equivalent inputs produce semantically equivalent outputs

PASS

✓

System Security

No prompt injection, data leakage, or unsafe tool use detected

PASS

Research Veto✅ PASS — Applicable

Dimension	Result	Detail
Scientific Integrity	PASS	Scientific content remained anchored to fetched metadata or source-linked evidence in the legacy review.
Practice Boundaries	PASS	Practice boundaries held because the package remained focused on source handling, lookup, or structured evidence use.
Methodological Ground	PASS	The legacy audit preserved a method-grounded interpretation of the Implements the ScholarEval framework to evaluate scholarly documents; trigger when the user provides a PDF/DOCX/TXT file or pasted text and requests critique, scoring, or quality assessment workflow.
Code Usability	PASS	Code usability passed because the search or lookup workflow still exposed a usable entrypoint and output expectation.

Core Capability87 / 100 — 8 Categories

Functional Suitability

The archived deduction in functional suitability traces back to: Improve stress-case output rigor. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency

11 / 12

92%

Reliability

Related legacy finding for scholar-evaluation: Improve stress-case output rigor. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency

10 / 12

83%

Performance & Context

Performance context reached full score in the archived evaluation.

8 / 8

100%

Agent Usability

The legacy audit deducted points for scholar-evaluation in agent usability.

14 / 16

88%

Human Usability

The legacy audit gave full marks to human usability for this package.

8 / 8

100%

Security

The legacy audit deducted points for scholar-evaluation in security.

9 / 12

75%

Maintainability

A modest deduction remained in maintainability for scholar-evaluation in the archived review.

10 / 12

83%

Agent-Specific

Agent specific was softened by the legacy issue 'Stabilize executable path and fallback behavior'. Some inputs only reached PARTIAL due to execution gaps or weak boundary handling

17 / 20

85%

Core Capability Total87 / 100

Medical TaskExecution Average: 86 / 100 — Assertions: 15/20 Passed

Canonical

Evaluate a research paper, thesis, or proposal and produce a structured critique with scores

3/4 ✓

Variant A

Generate actionable revision recommendations across core academic writing dimensions

3/4 ✓

Edge

Automatic text extraction from PDF/DOCX/TXT via scripts/extract_text.py (intended as the first step for file inputs)

3/4 ✓

Variant B

ScholarEval rubric with 8 evaluation dimensions (see references/evaluation_framework.md)

3/4 ✓

Stress

End-to-end case for Automatic text extraction from PDF/DOCX/TXT via scripts/extract_text.py (intended as the first step for file inputs)

3/4 ✓

Canonical✅ Pass

Evaluate a research paper, thesis, or proposal and produce a structured critique with scores

Evaluate a research paper, thesis, or proposal and produce a... stayed well-scoped, but the local run could not proceed because the expected input file was absent.

Basic 33/40|Specialized 53/60|Total 86/100

✅A1The scholar-evaluation output structure matches the documented deliverable

❌A2The script execution path completed successfully for the documented case

✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary

✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path

Pass rate: 3 / 4

Variant A✅ Pass

Generate actionable revision recommendations across core academic writing dimensions

The archived execution for Generate actionable revision recommendations across core academic... failed for environmental reasons rather than workflow ambiguity: a required file was missing.

Basic 31/40|Specialized 55/60|Total 86/100

✅A1The scholar-evaluation output structure matches the documented deliverable

❌A2The script execution path completed successfully for the documented case

✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary

✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path

Pass rate: 3 / 4

Edge✅ Pass

Automatic text extraction from PDF/DOCX/TXT via scripts/extract_text.py (intended as the first step for file inputs)

The archived execution for Automatic text extraction from PDF/DOCX/TXT via... failed for environmental reasons rather than workflow ambiguity: a required file was missing.

Basic 30/40|Specialized 56/60|Total 86/100

✅A1The scholar-evaluation output structure matches the documented deliverable

❌A2The script execution path completed successfully for the documented case

✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary

✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path

Pass rate: 3 / 4

Variant B✅ Pass

ScholarEval rubric with 8 evaluation dimensions (see references/evaluation_framework.md)

The ScholarEval rubric with 8 evaluation dimensions (see... workflow is defined, but this run was blocked by a missing local input file.

Basic 29/40|Specialized 57/60|Total 86/100

✅A1The scholar-evaluation output structure matches the documented deliverable

❌A2The script execution path completed successfully for the documented case

✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary

✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path

Pass rate: 3 / 4

Stress✅ Pass

End-to-end case for Automatic text extraction from PDF/DOCX/TXT via scripts/extract_text.py (intended as the first step for file inputs)

The End-to-end case for Automatic text extraction from PDF/DOCX/TXT via... workflow is defined, but this run was blocked by a missing local input file.

Basic 26/40|Specialized 60/60|Total 86/100

✅A1The scholar-evaluation output structure matches the documented deliverable

❌A2The script execution path completed successfully for the documented case

✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary

✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path

Pass rate: 3 / 4

Medical Task Total86 / 100

Key Strengths

Primary routing is Evidence Insight with execution mode B
Static quality score is 87/100 and dynamic average is 73.6/100
Assertions and command execution outcomes are recorded per input for human review
Execution verification summary: Script verification 1/2; adjustment=3. calculate_scores.py: OK; extract_text.py: rc=1