Research and science

Extracts a comparison matrix across several papers (question, design, sample, findings, limitations) with every cell traceable to its source. Use when organising sources for a literature review.

Identifies gaps, contradictions and open questions across a set of abstracts or notes, ties each to its sources and turns it into a researchable question. Use when scoping a thesis, grant or review.

Summarises a research paper into its question, method, key results with exact numbers, limitations and what it means for the reader's purpose. Use before citing, relying on or reading a paper in full.

Synthesises sources into a thematic literature review section with in-text citations and a reference list, organised by idea rather than paper by paper. Use for theses, articles and proposals.

Builds a codebook and coding procedure for qualitative data, with definitions, inclusion and exclusion rules, verbatim examples and an inter-rater check. Use before coding interviews or open text.

Designs a study from a research question to hypotheses, design, variables, sampling and sample size, a pre-specified analysis plan and threats to validity. Use before collecting any data.

Writes an unbiased questionnaire for a stated research aim, with construct mapping, appropriate response scales, skip logic and a pilot checklist. Use before fielding any survey.

Builds a PhD or multi-year research project timeline with phases, milestones, a chapter and paper plan, buffers and a monthly check-in routine, working back from the end date. For doctoral students.

Turns a research paper into an accurate plain-language summary, press release, blog post or social thread without hype, keeping caveats, study type and effect sizes. Use for science communication.

Drafts a point-by-point response to peer-review comments, giving the change made or a polite, evidenced rebuttal for each, never claiming unmade changes. Use for revise-and-resubmit.

Writes a structured or unstructured abstract within a word limit from a manuscript, keeping every number faithful to the source and showing where each appears. Use before submission.

Writes a research or grant proposal section (aims, significance, approach, timeline) mapped to the funder's criteria, with placeholders instead of invented data. Use for grant or thesis proposals.

Checks an article's numbers for misleading percentages, missing base rates, cherry-picked windows and correlation sold as causation, recomputing what it can. Use before quoting it.

Assesses how far a source can be trusted for a specific claim using lateral reading (author, evidence, funding, corroboration) and gives a reasoned verdict. Use before citing a source.

Checks each factual claim in a text against sources it actually retrieves, rates it with evidence and links, and says plainly when a claim cannot be verified. Use before publishing or sharing.

Checks a health or nutrition claim against the hierarchy of evidence and explains in plain words what the research does and does not show, without personal medical advice. For health news readers.

Writes a constructive manuscript review with a summary, major and minor issues, methodological and reporting concerns, and a reasoned recommendation. Use when refereeing a paper.

Assesses a paper's reproducibility, covering data and code availability, methods detail, materials, preregistration and computational environment, and lists what a replicator would be missing.

Checks a manuscript against its reporting guideline, such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, ARRIVE or COREQ, item by item, and lists what is missing and where to add it. For authors and reviewers.

Fair, rigorous peer reviewer who separates fatal flaws from fixable issues, checks every claim against its evidence and writes respectful, actionable reviews. For refereeing and pre-submission reads.