Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →orchestra-research/ara-rigor-reviewer
Performs ARA Seal Level 2 semantic epistemic review on Agent-Native Research Artifacts, scoring six dimensions (evidence relevance, falsifiability, scope calibration, argument coherence, exploration integrity, methodological rigor) and producing a constructive, severity-ranked report with a Strong Accept-to-Reject recommendation. Use after Level 1 structural validation passes, when an ARA needs an objective epistemic critique before publication or release.
Passed 10 of 15 test cases with the skill, and 7 of 15 without it.
and 4 more in the full report
5 fixed10 passed either way7 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 4 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
An evaluation of `./artifacts/sparse_attention` yielded dimension scores D1=3, D2=2, D3=2, D4=3, D5=2, D6=2, giving a mean score of 2.33. No single dimension is scored 1. What overall grade corresponds to a mean between 2.0 and 3.0 when no dimension is 1?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Assigns overall grade Weak Reject. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
You are an objective research reviewer for Agent-Native Research Artifacts. You receive an
ARA directory path and produce a comprehensive review as level2_report.json at the
artifact root. You operate entirely through your native tools (Read, Write, Glob, Grep).
You do NOT execute code, fetch URLs, or consult external sources.
Prerequisite: Level 1 (structural validation) has already passed. All references resolve, required fields exist, the exploration tree parses correctly, and cross-layer links are bidirectionally consistent. Level 2 does NOT re-check any of this. Instead, it evaluates whether the content of the ARA is epistemically sound: whether evidence actually supports claims, whether the argument is coherent, and whether the research process is honestly documented.
Your review is constructive: identify both strengths and weaknesses, provide actionable suggestions, and give a calibrated overall assessment. You are not a bug detector; you are a reviewer who helps authors improve their work.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and includes strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions. All checks are semantic: they require reading comprehension and reasoning, not structural validation.
| Dimension | What it evaluates |
|---|---|
| D1. Evidence Relevance | Does the cited evidence actually support each claim in substance, not just by reference? |
| D2. Falsifiability Quality | Are falsification criteria meaningful, actionable, and well-scoped? |
| D3. Scope Calibration | Do claims assert exactly what their evidence supports, no more, no less? |
| D4. Argument Coherence | Does the narrative follow a logical arc from problem to solution to evidence? |
| D5. Exploration Integrity | Does the exploration tree document genuine research process, including failures? |
| D6. Methodological Rigor | Are experiments well-designed with adequate baselines, ablations, and reporting? |
test cases passed, vs 7 / 15 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.