Academic Thesis Review
by @wmpluto
Multi-round review skill for Chinese management-oriented master's theses, especially MBA, MEM, and MPA, with applicability to similar professional and applie...
clawhub install academic-thesis-review📖 About This Skill
name: academic-thesis-review description: Multi-round review skill for Chinese management-oriented master's theses, especially MBA, MEM, and MPA, with applicability to similar professional and applied research theses. license: MIT metadata: author: wmpluto version: "1.1.0" repository: https://github.com/wmpluto/academic-thesis-review-skill github_profile: https://github.com/wmpluto compatibility: - OpenCode - OpenClaw - Claude Code
Skill: Academic Thesis Review (Chinese Master's Thesis)
Description
Multi-round academic review of Chinese Master's theses (硕士学位论文). Uses a 3-round review strategy (macro → per-chapter → inter-chapter consistency). Acts as a strict professor reviewer, producing actionable revision comments in Chinese. Supports iterative version cycles.Trigger Phrases
Prerequisites
.docx formatreview_results.md exists in the working directory, iterative mode is triggered automatically (see Phase 1 § Prior Review Detection)Part I: Rules & Instructions
Core Rules
Execution Order
Round 1 ─┐ ┐
├─ (parallel or sequential) ───├→ Round 3 → Consolidate → User revises
Round 2 ─┘ ┘
Default Thesis Assumption
Standard master's thesis structure: abstract → introduction → literature/theory → methodology → analysis/results → conclusion → references → appendices. No restriction on research topic, industry, or case type.
Non-standard fallback: If the thesis uses non-standard chapter names or merged chapters, map chapters by function: research problem → literature support → method design → results delivery → conclusion.
Conflict Resolution (authoritative — all rounds defer to this)
1. Evidence first, then severity. If R2/R3 evidence overturns an R1 finding, the severity follows the new evidence — do not preserve R1's higher severity for a claim R2/R3 disproved. 2. If Round 2 and Round 3 disagree on the same finding, prefer the conclusion backed by more direct full-text evidence. 3. If multiple rounds independently confirm the same issue but at different severities, keep the higher severity.
Verification Types
All review checklists use these labels. Defined once here; referenced throughout.
Severity Rubric
Phase 1: Text Extraction
Extract plain text from .docx via Python:
import zipfile, xml.etree.ElementTree as ETdocx_path = r''
z = zipfile.ZipFile(docx_path)
doc_xml = z.read('word/document.xml')
tree = ET.fromstring(doc_xml)
ns = {'w': 'http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main'}
paragraphs = tree.findall('.//w:p', ns)
full_text = []
for p in paragraphs:
runs = p.findall('.//w:r/w:t', ns)
line = ''.join(r.text for r in runs if r.text)
if line.strip():
full_text.append(line)
result = '\n'.join(full_text)
Output to review_artifacts/thesis_full_text_. Create directory if it does not exist. Note paragraph count and character count as baseline metrics.
Preparation
After extraction, prepare:
Chapter Splitting Rules
第1章, 第一章, 1 绪论)Prior Review Detection (Iterative Mode)
After extraction, check whether review_results.md exists in the current working directory.
Not found → First-version mode:
Found → Iterative mode:
1. Parse the prior review_results.md to extract:
- Prior version number → increment by 1 for the new review
- All prior issues from "本版问题清单" with their severity, location, and description
2. Classify each prior issue by its "位置" field:
- Issues with location "全局" → redistribute to relevant chapters in Round 2
- Issues with location "第X章" → Round 2 (injected in Phase B when reviewing that chapter)
- Issues with location "第X章→第Y章" → Round 3 (injected when reviewing that pair)
3. Verification marking (applied in Phase B of Round 2 and in Round 3):
- Issue is resolved → mark ✅已修改
- Issue is partially addressed → mark ⚠️部分修改, describe what remains
- Issue is unchanged → mark ❌未修改
Iterative Mode: Issue Injection Strategy
Key Principle: Separation of Discovery and Verification
To prevent anchoring bias (agent treating prior issues as a checklist instead of performing independent review), the injection strategy is designed as follows:
Round 1: No injection
Round 2: Two-phase per-chapter review
Round 3: Cross-chapter verification
Anti-Shortcut Rules:
Extraction Limitations
Phase 2: Three-Round Review
Round 1: Macro Structure Review
Input: Full thesis text. *(In iterative mode: NO prior issues injected — execute as first-version mode)* Focus: Bird's-eye structural and logical assessment. Do NOT give line-level edits. Long-input fallback: If the full thesis exceeds stable single-pass context, read in large sequential chunks with overlap, then do one pass over all Round 1 findings to ensure cross-chunk consistency before outputting the dependency map.
#### 1.1 Reading Order 1. Title page & metadata 2. Table of contents 3. Chinese abstract + keywords 4. English abstract + keywords 5. All chapters — read sequentially for structural flow 6. References 7. Appendices
#### 1.2 Review Checklist
| Item | What to Check | Type | |------|--------------|------| | Overall structure | Chapter layout logical? Chapters proportional? | [D] | | Research question → Conclusion chain | All research questions answered in conclusion? Any silently dropped? | [D] | | Logic flow | Each chapter leads naturally to the next? Logical jumps or missing bridges? | [D] | | Terminology consistency (global) | Key terms used consistently throughout? | [D] | | Theory utilization | How many theories introduced vs. actually used? Flag bloat. | [D] | | Completeness | All promised analyses delivered? Limitations discussed? Future work? | [D] | | Factual self-consistency | Dates, statistics contradict each other *within* the thesis? | [D] | | Factual accuracy (external) | Do named facts match known reality? | [M] — flag suspicious values only | | Section proportionality | Chapters too short for their function, or too long and overloaded? | [D] | | Innovation & contribution | Are innovation points explicitly stated? Are they supported by the thesis body? Calibration: master's theses (especially part-time/professional) are NOT expected to produce high-level innovation. Applying existing methods to a new context or combining known approaches in a novel way IS acceptable — the key requirement is that innovation points exist, are clearly articulated, and are not fabricated. Flag missing or unsubstantiated claims, not low novelty. | [D] for whether stated; [S] for whether substantiated | | Practice relevance *(if practice-oriented)* | Is the research grounded in a real-world problem or case? Does the thesis produce actionable recommendations, not just theoretical conclusions? Does it demonstrate problem-solving ability? | [D] | | Abstract consistency | Chinese and English abstracts match each other and faithfully represent the thesis? | [D] | | References (overview) | Format consistency, recency, relevance | [D] |
#### 1.3 Required Output: Chapter Dependency Map
Output a chapter dependency map at the end of Round 1. This drives Round 3 pair selection.
Format:
章节逻辑依赖关系：
🔴 第1章 → 第5章：[依赖关系说明]
🔴 第3章 → 第4章：[依赖关系说明]
🟡 第2章 → 第3章：[依赖关系说明]
...
A → B = A makes a promise / sets scope; B should deliver or remain consistentRound 2: Per-Chapter Deep Review
Input per chapter: Thesis summary block + current chapter full text + summary cards of all previously reviewed chapters. Execution: Sequential, in document order. *(In iterative mode: two-phase execution per chapter — see §2.x)* Focus: Detailed intra-chapter quality. Line-level issues are caught here.
First chapter note: When reviewing the first chapter, no prior summary cards exist. Skip the "交付" field in that chapter's summary card.
#### 2.1 Review Dimensions
| Dimension | What to Check | Type | |-----------|--------------|------| | Data Consistency | Numbers in tables match text? Actively recalculate totals, percentages, and derived values from raw data — do not just check whether they "look right." If raw numbers are available, verify that reported percentages/scores are arithmetically correct. | [D] | | Internal Logic | Argument flows logically? Claims supported? Logical leaps? | [D] | | Methodology Rigor | Method selection rationale stated and internally consistent? | [D]/[S] | | Quantitative checks *(if applicable)* | Statistical test choices, sample size, validity/reliability — apply only for quantitative empirical work | [S]; definitive judgment [M] | | Literature Review | Research gap articulated? Key competing works cited? Gap justifies this study? | [D] for presence; [M] for citation accuracy | | Citation adequacy | Major claims backed by citations? Unsupported assertions? | [S]; whether source supports claim is [M] | | Language & Style | Typos, repeated chars (的的/了了), grammar errors (病句), punctuation misuse (中英文标点混用), inconsistent terminology, colloquial language in academic text, overly long/convoluted sentences | [D] | | Factual accuracy (internal) | Dates/numbers consistent *within this chapter*? | [D] | | Factual accuracy (external) | Real-world claims plausible? | [S]/[M] — flag only | | Chapter Framing | Opening bridges from previous chapter? Closing sets up next? | [D] | | Chapter Proportion & Function | Too short for its function? Too long and overloaded? | [D] |
Proactive expansion rule: When the thesis uses a specific research method (survey, AHP, regression, case study, grounded theory, etc.), the agent must proactively apply that method's academic validation criteria — not just check the generic dimensions above. The agent's own domain knowledge is the source for method-specific checks; the skill does not enumerate them.
See Appendix B for chapter-type-specific focus areas.
#### 2.2 Special Section Responsibilities
#### 2.x Iterative Mode: Two-Phase Per-Chapter Review
Applies only when review_results.md exists (iterative mode).
In iterative mode, each chapter review is split into two sequential phases to prevent anchoring bias:
Phase A: Independent Discovery (NO historical issues visible)
Input: Thesis summary block + current chapter full text + prior chapter summary cards
Output format (to review_working.md):
### 第X章 [章节名] - Phase A 独立发现审阅维度覆盖：
[x] 数据一致性：[具体检查内容，如"核算了表4.2共5处百分比，均正确"]
[x] 内部逻辑：[具体检查内容，如"检查了论证链A→B→C，逻辑成立"]
[x] 方法严谨性：[具体检查内容] 或 [N/A - 本章无方法论内容]
[x] 文献引用：[具体检查内容] 或 [N/A]
[x] 语言规范：[具体检查内容，如"未发现病句或标点问题"]
[x] 章节衔接：[具体检查内容，如"开篇承接第2章结论，结尾为第4章铺垫"] 独立发现问题：
| 编号 | 严重度 | 问题 | 位置 | 类型 |
|------|--------|------|------|------|
| D-1 | 🟡 | ... | L123 | [D] |
*若未发现新问题：*
> 经独立审阅上述维度，本章未发现新问题。
Phase B: Historical Issue Verification (inject after Phase A completes)
Input: Phase A output + historical issues for this chapter (including relevant "全局" issues)
Output format (to review_working.md):
### 第X章 - Phase B 历史问题验证注入问题： [#1] [#7] [#19-A]
| 编号 | 原问题概述 | 验证结果 | 说明 |
|------|-----------|----------|------|
| [#1] | Wilcoxon Z/p矛盾 | ❌未修改 | L1965仍为Z=-5.059, p=0.593 |
| [#7] | 研究问题未编号化 | ❌未修改 | L162-168仍为叙述式 |
章节摘要卡（定稿）：
[标准摘要卡格式]
Sequencing Rule: Phase A MUST be complete and output to working file BEFORE Phase B input is provided. The agent may NOT "peek ahead" at historical issues during Phase A.
Dimension Coverage Checklist Requirement: The checklist in Phase A must include specific descriptions of what was checked (not just checkmarks). This serves as verifiable evidence that independent review was performed.
#### 2.3 Required Output: Per-Chapter Summary Card
Output after each chapter. Used by Round 3 for orientation and dependency map validation.
## [章节编号] [章节标题]核心论点： 1-2句话
承诺（本章对后续章节的承诺）：
[例如"将在第4章用AHP验证该评价体系"]
交付（本章兑现了前序章节的哪些承诺）：
[例如"兑现了第2章提出的三层指标框架"]
关键数据/定义： 关键数字、术语定义、模型名称（供跨章核对）
本章问题摘要： 🔴🟡问题概览（1-3条最关键的）
During Round 3 setup, compare summary cards against Round 1's dependency map:
Conflict with Round 1: default to Round 2 evidence (per Core Rules § Conflict Resolution).
Round 3: Inter-Chapter Consistency Review
Input per pair: Thesis summary block + both summary cards + both chapter full texts. In iterative mode: also receives cross-chapter prior issues for verification. Pairs: Merged from Round 1 dependency map + Round 2 summary card validation.
#### Pair Selection Stopping Rule
#### Coverage Transparency
Output at end of Round 3:
章节配对审查覆盖情况：
✅ 已完成：第1章 → 第5章（🔴，研究问题→结论回应）
✅ 已完成：第3章 → 第4章（🔴，方法→结果兑现）
⏭ 已跳过：第2章 → 第3章（🟡，摘要卡无具体承诺/交付链接）
⏭ 已跳过：第4章 → 第5章（🟢，未进入本轮）
#### Spot Check Mechanism (Iterative Mode Only)
Purpose: Validate Round 2 Phase A "无新发现" claims through targeted re-examination. Provides a deterrent against superficial review.
Trigger Conditions: A spot check is triggered when ALL of the following are true: 1. A chapter's Phase A declared "本章未发现新问题" 2. AND that chapter has historical 🔴 issues OR 3+ historical 🟡 issues
Procedure:
1. Select 1-2 subsections (500-1000 characters each) from the triggered chapter
2. Perform focused re-review on two dimensions only: data consistency + terminology consistency
3. Output result to review_working.md
Limits (Cost Control):
Output Format (to review_working.md):
### 抽查验证章节： 第X章 §X.X（L###-L###）
抽查原因： Phase A声明无新发现，但该章有历史🔴问题[#1][#5]
抽查维度： 数据一致性、术语一致性
抽查结果：
✅ 未发现Round 2遗漏的问题（支持Phase A声明）
⚠️ 发现潜在遗漏（需补充至问题清单）：
- [问题描述]
Integration with Final Output:
review_working.md only[抽查补充]review_results.md format remains unchanged (user does not see spot check details)#### Reading Strategy (per pair)
Full-text reading of both chapters is MANDATORY. Summary cards are navigation index only.
1. Read both summary cards → understand expected promise/deliverable relationship and key data points 2. Read Chapter A in full → note claims, numbers, definitions, commitments 3. Read Chapter B in full → actively cross-check against Chapter A notes 4. Document all inconsistencies found
Long-input fallback: If a chapter pair exceeds stable single-pass context, read each chapter in chunks but ensure a final cross-check pass covers all noted data points and commitments from both chapters before concluding.
#### Pre-Round 3: Dependency Map Reconciliation
1. List Round 1's dependency pairs 2. Check each summary card's "承诺"/"交付" against Round 1's pairs 3. Produce final pair list: confirmed + newly discovered − demoted 4. Document changes briefly
#### Review Checklist (per pair)
| Item | What to Check | Type | |------|--------------|------| | Terminology alignment | Same concepts use same terms across chapters? | [D] | | Data/number consistency | Same statistics, sample sizes, dates consistent? | [D] | | Scope alignment | Chapter B delivers what A promised? B introduces undeclared scope? | [D] | | Cross-reference suspicion scan | Suspicious 图/表/章/节 references or numbering jumps? | [S]/[M] | | Logical continuity | Transition makes sense? Logical gaps or contradictions? | [D] |
Cross-references are not a primary hard-check item — only flag suspicious cases for manual Word verification.
Phase 3: Consolidation & Output
After all 3 rounds, consolidate into a single issue-centric document. Each issue appears once; originating round noted in brackets.
Output Files
| File | Location | Content |
|------|----------|---------|
| review_results.md | Working directory | Final consolidated review (user-facing deliverable) |
| review_working_ | review_artifacts/ | Round 1 dependency map, Round 2 summary cards, Round 3 pair logs, all intermediate findings |
| thesis_full_text_ | review_artifacts/ | Extracted plain text from docx (Phase 1 output) |
Directory structure:
working_directory/
├── review_results.md
└── review_artifacts/
├── thesis_full_text_20260325_143052.txt
└── review_working_20260325_143052.md
Notes:
review_artifacts/ directory if it does not existYYYYMMDD_HHMMSS (local time)Working File Structure (Iterative Mode)
In iterative mode, review_working.md must include the following sections to serve as execution evidence:
# 评审工作文档（第X版）Round 1: 宏观结构审阅
[依赖关系图 + 宏观发现]Round 2: 逐章深度审阅
第1章 [章节名] - Phase A 独立发现
审阅维度覆盖： [详细checklist]
独立发现问题： [列表或"无"]第1章 - Phase B 历史问题验证
注入问题： [编号列表]
验证结果： [表格]
章节摘要卡： [标准格式][...其他章节...]
Round 3: 跨章一致性审阅
[配对审查记录]抽查验证
[抽查记录，如有]历史问题验证汇总
[所有历史问题的验证状态汇总表]
Key Points:
Consolidation Rules
De-duplication: Keep the most specific/actionable version of each issue. Other rounds noted as supporting evidence only. When merging related-but-distinct issues, verify they truly share the same root problem — two issues that share a *topic* (e.g., both about Chapter 1) but target different *defects* (e.g., tone vs. evidence gap) must remain separate entries.
Conflict resolution: See Core Rules § Conflict Resolution.
Coverage verification (mandatory before finalizing): Before writing the final output, confirm that every distinct finding from all 3 rounds is either included in the consolidated issue list, explicitly merged into another issue, or dropped with a stated reason. No finding may be silently lost.
Iterative mode — prior issue handling:
[部分修改])[延续])[新发现] in the problem listPersistent issues: If the same issue has been flagged across 3+ consecutive versions: 1. Acknowledge explicitly ("已连续N版提出") 2. Provide minimum-cost fix — exact replacement text + location 3. Assess defense risk 4. Version 4+: shift to "if you cannot fix, prepare an oral answer for defense"
Convergence criteria (assess and report in 总体评价):
Output Template
Template instructions (do NOT include these in the final document):
review_results.md exists). Omit entirely in first-version mode.[新发现] and the tag may be omitted.# 硕士学位论文评审意见（第X版）论文题目： ...
学位类别： ...
评审日期： ...
一、修订情况核查
| # | 原问题概述 | 原严重度 | 修改状态 | 评价 |
|---|-----------|---------|---------|------|
| 1 | ... | 🔴 | ✅已修改 | 数据已更正 |
| 2 | ... | 🟡 | ⚠️部分修改 | 第2章已改，第4章仍有3处 |
| 3 | ... | 🔴 | ❌未修改 | 仍缺失 |
二、本版问题清单
排序： 🔴优先，同级别按影响范围（全局 > 跨章 > 单章）排序。
每条格式：
> [编号] [🔴/🟡/🟢] [延续/部分修改/新发现] 问题标题
> - 位置： 第X章 / 第X章→第Y章 / 全局
> - 来源： [R1] / [R2] / [R3]（可多项）
> - 验证状态： [D]已确认 / [S]疑似 / [M]需人工核查
> - 问题描述： 具体说明，引用原文
> - 修改建议： 可操作的具体建议
🔴 必须修改
🟡 强烈建议修改
🟢 建议修改
三、总体评价
优点（3-5条）
整体结论与修改优先级
收敛评估
四、审查覆盖情况
4.1 章节配对覆盖（Round 3 coverage log）
4.2 人工核查待办（[M]类问题）
[ ] [具体项目]
五、答辩提醒（可选）
Output Specification
review_results.mdPart II: Reference Knowledge
The following sections are reference material for the agent to consult during review. They are not execution rules.
Appendix A: Default Dependency Patterns
Common dependency pairs for standard thesis structure. Use as starting point for Round 1 dependency map.
| Pair | What to Check | |------|---------------| | Introduction → Literature Review | Research questions fully covered by literature? Irrelevant literature present? | | Introduction → Conclusion | Every research question answered? Conclusion claims within intro scope? | | Literature Review → Methodology | Conceptual framework operationalized in method? Method justified by gap? Terminology consistent? | | Methodology → Results | Every described method/instrument executed and reported? Undescribed methods appearing? Variable names consistent? | | Results → Discussion/Conclusion | Every finding discussed? Over-interpretation beyond data? Statistical conclusions match data? |
Appendix B: Chapter-Specific Focus Areas
Additional focus when reviewing specific chapter types in Round 2.
| Chapter Type | Additional Focus | |-------------|-----------------| | Introduction | Research gap specificity, innovation points clearly stated and not overstated, stated framework matches actual thesis structure | | Literature Review / Theory | Theory bloat (describe 5, use 2), citation format, gap analysis → methodology link | | Methodology | Rationale stated, internal consistency; *(if quantitative)* sample justification, validity/reliability, reproducibility | | Results / Analysis | Table-text data consistency; *(if quantitative)* test choices, hypotheses; *(if qualitative)* interpretation grounded in evidence | | Discussion / Conclusion | No over-interpretation, all questions answered, limitations honest; *(if practice-oriented)* actionable recommendations for practitioners, not just theoretical implications | | English Abstract | Grammar, non-idiomatic phrasing ("Aiming at", "Firstly/Secondly"), keyword consistency | | Appendices | Alignment with main text; *(if survey)* question design, scale coverage, response options |
⚙️ Configuration
.docx formatreview_results.md exists in the working directory, iterative mode is triggered automatically (see Phase 1 § Prior Review Detection)