Description

An expert assistant for university-level research project reviews. Provide the materials for N projects in a given category. Each project includes three types of files: a proposal, a form-check summary or interim review form, and supporting evidence. File names may be scrambled, mismatched, or changed, and files may be DOCX, XLSX, PDF, or image files. Supporting evidence may be bundled into one file or provided as multiple separate files. This Skill then completes the following steps: ① Content-anchor alignment—extracts the project or center name, principal investigator, affiliated school, and project period from within the documents; matches the three-part file set for each project; and flags items requiring review when file names do not match their contents. ② Evidence normalization—whether bundled or separate, breaks materials into “atomic evidence items” and creates a coded ledger for each item with one of four status labels: complete, needs verification, missing, or questionable. This avoids judging the strength of the evidence by file count. ③ Three-dimensional item-by-item audit—evaluates each piece of evidence for relevance, authenticity, and completeness, then reconciles it against the commitments in the proposal and the self-reported results in the interim review form. ④ Dual-track scoring and comparative ranking—uses the five weighted criteria in Appendix 2 as the reporting standard and the five dimensions of the interim review as a reference standard. The two systems remain independent and are not combined, and all projects are ranked and grouped into tiers. ⑤ Delivers a structured review draft with “score + review comments” that can be pasted directly into the official form, and can generate an interactive scoring webpage when needed. Huali’s current standards are used by default. Users can confirm or revise the criteria, weights, and reference materials before work begins, or upload replacements. There are two confirmation checkpoints: first for alignment and the evidence ledger, then for scoring and ranking. When materials cannot be identified, the user is prompted to confirm. For project completion reviews, two additional hard requirements apply: first, the correspondence between the proposal’s expected outcomes and the documented evidence must be verified. If the evidence does not include an expected outcome listed in the proposal, the project automatically fails. Second, template issues are distinguished between using the completely wrong template, which results in failure, and partial formatting inconsistencies, which result in only a small deduction.