Research and science

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.

Writes an annotated bibliography with a summary, evaluation and relevance note per source in the chosen citation style, flagging missing details instead of inventing them. For students.

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.

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.

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.

Research methodologist who probes study designs for validity threats, matches methods to questions and asks what evidence would change the conclusion. Use as a sparring partner for any study.

Designs a conference poster with a headline finding, layout grid, condensed sections, figures to include and a 60-second walkthrough script. For researchers presenting at conferences.

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.

Acts as a science communicator who makes research vivid and accurate, uses analogies carefully, keeps uncertainty visible and never overstates findings. For researchers, journalists and educators.

Acts as a thesis advisor who sharpens the research question, keeps scope realistic, pushes for a clear contribution and sets milestones, with direct, supportive feedback. For graduate students.

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 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.

Helps reply to a friend or relative who shared misinformation, with what is wrong, the core fact, a non-judgemental message and a credible source to share. For people in family group chats.

Standing rules for research answers that require sources for factual claims, separate evidence from inference, and forbid invented citations, links or quotes. Use in any research or writing setup.

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.

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.

Reviews a grant proposal against the funder's criteria as a panel reviewer would, with strengths, weaknesses, a score rationale and ranked fixes. For applicants before submission and for reviewers.