alterlab-thesis-supervisor — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited alterlab-thesis-supervisor (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
A comprehensive thesis and dissertation supervision tool for faculty supervisors and advisors, and for the work they do with their graduate students. Covers the full dissertation lifecycle from initial topic selection through successful defense, providing chapter-by-chapter guidance, supervision strategies, timeline management, and defense preparation.
Supervising a thesis or dissertation is one of the most complex and consequential activities in academic life. This skill supports both supervisors and students through every stage of the process: defining a viable research question, structuring a proposal, writing each chapter to disciplinary standards, preparing for committee meetings and defenses, and navigating the human dimensions of the supervisory relationship.
The skill is designed to be discipline-flexible, with examples drawn from social sciences, humanities, STEM, and professional fields. Formatting guidance covers APA 7, Chicago/Turabian, and generic university styles.
This skill should be used when:
alterlab-teaching-design)| Scenario | Use Instead |
|---|---|
| Writing a journal article (not thesis), including one derived from a dissertation | alterlab-paper-writer |
| Statistical analysis of thesis data | alterlab-statistical-analysis |
| Systematic literature search strategy (PRISMA screening) | alterlab-deep-research |
| Survey/instrument design for thesis | alterlab-survey-design |
| Designing a thesis-writing seminar course (learning outcomes, rubrics, syllabus) | alterlab-teaching-design |
Standard Five-Chapter Model (Social Sciences, Education, Business):
PROPOSAL (Chapters 1-3)
│
├── Chapter 1: Introduction
│ ├── Background and context
│ ├── Problem statement
│ ├── Purpose of the study
│ ├── Research questions (and hypotheses, if applicable)
│ ├── Significance of the study
│ ├── Scope and delimitations
│ ├── Definition of key terms
│ └── Organization of the dissertation
│
├── Chapter 2: Literature Review
│ ├── Introduction and search strategy
│ ├── Theoretical/conceptual framework
│ ├── Thematic review of literature
│ ├── Synthesis and identification of gaps
│ └── Summary and connection to research questions
│
├── Chapter 3: Methodology
│ ├── Research design and rationale
│ ├── Setting and context
│ ├── Population and sample
│ ├── Data collection methods and instruments
│ ├── Data analysis procedures
│ ├── Trustworthiness/validity and reliability
│ ├── Ethical considerations
│ ├── Researcher positionality (qualitative)
│ └── Limitations
│
COMPLETED AFTER DATA COLLECTION (Chapters 4-5)
│
├── Chapter 4: Results/Findings
│ ├── Data screening and preparation
│ ├── Participant/sample description
│ ├── Results organized by research question
│ ├── Tables and figures
│ └── Summary of findings
│
└── Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions
├── Summary of the study
├── Discussion of findings (connected to literature)
├── Implications (theoretical, practical, policy)
├── Limitations
├── Recommendations for future research
└── ConclusionAlternative Structures by Discipline:
| Discipline | Structure | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 5-chapter model (above) | Most common for EdD, PhD in education, psychology, management |
| STEM (experimental) | Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion (IMRaD variant) | May include multiple studies as separate chapters |
| Humanities | Introduction, literature/theory chapters (2-4), analysis chapters (2-4), conclusion | More flexible; argument-driven rather than question-driven |
| Three-paper model | Introduction, Paper 1, Paper 2, Paper 3, Conclusion | Each paper is publishable; increasingly popular in STEM and social sciences |
| Practice-based (professional doctorate) | Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Findings, Action Plan/Recommendations | Emphasis on practical application |
| Creative arts | Creative work + exegesis (critical reflection) | Varies widely by institution |
Each chapter has a detailed, section-by-section writing template — purpose statement, section guide, quality checklists, common-mistake tables, and presentation guidelines:
Full chapter-by-chapter writing templates and checklists: see references/chapter_writing_guides.md.
Typical PhD Timeline (4-6 years, social sciences):
Year 1: Coursework + Topic Exploration
├── Semester 1: Core courses; identify broad area of interest
├── Semester 2: Methods courses; narrow topic; identify advisor
└── Summer: Preliminary literature review; draft topic statement
Year 2: Coursework + Proposal Development
├── Semester 1: Advanced courses; comprehensive/qualifying exams
├── Semester 2: Draft Chapters 1-3 (proposal)
└── Summer: Revise proposal; IRB application
Year 3: Proposal Defense + Data Collection
├── Semester 1: Proposal defense; begin data collection
├── Semester 2: Continue/complete data collection
└── Summer: Begin data analysis
Year 4: Analysis + Writing
├── Semester 1: Complete analysis; draft Chapter 4
├── Semester 2: Draft Chapter 5; revise all chapters
└── Summer: Defense preparation; submit to committeeMaster's Thesis Timeline (1-2 years):
Semester 1
├── Month 1-2: Topic selection, advisor match, literature review begins
├── Month 3: Draft proposal outline; committee formation
└── Month 4: Proposal defense (or approval by advisor)
Semester 2
├── Month 5: IRB submission (if needed); data collection begins
├── Month 6-7: Data collection; begin analysis
└── Month 8: Complete analysis; draft results
Semester 3 (or end of Semester 2)
├── Month 9-10: Complete full draft; advisor review
├── Month 11: Revisions based on feedback; submit to committee
└── Month 12: Defense; final revisions; submit to graduate schoolThesis Milestone Tracker:
## Thesis Timeline: [Student Name]
| Milestone | Target Date | Actual Date | Status | Notes |
|-----------|------------|-------------|--------|-------|
| Topic approved by advisor | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Committee formed | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Chapter 1 draft to advisor | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Chapter 2 draft to advisor | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Chapter 3 draft to advisor | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Proposal to committee | [Date] | | [ ] | 2 weeks before defense |
| Proposal defense | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| IRB approval | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Data collection complete | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Chapter 4 draft to advisor | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Chapter 5 draft to advisor | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Full draft to committee | [Date] | | [ ] | 4 weeks before defense |
| Final defense | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Revisions complete | [Date] | | [ ] | |
| Submit to graduate school | [Date] | | [ ] | Check formatting deadlines |
| Graduation | [Date] | | [ ] | |Supervisory Meeting Structure:
## Meeting Agenda Template
### Pre-Meeting (Student Prepares)
- [ ] Submit written work 48+ hours before meeting
- [ ] Prepare 2-3 specific questions or decision points
- [ ] Update progress log since last meeting
- [ ] List any obstacles or concerns
### During Meeting (30-60 minutes)
1. Check-in (5 min): How are you doing? Any concerns?
2. Progress review (10 min): What has been accomplished since last meeting?
3. Discussion of submitted work (20-30 min): Feedback, questions, direction
4. Next steps (10 min): Clear action items with deadlines
5. Next meeting date confirmed
### Post-Meeting (Student Documents)
- [ ] Written summary of decisions and action items
- [ ] Shared with supervisor within 24 hours
- [ ] Filed in shared thesis folderFeedback Strategies for Supervisors:
| Level of Draft | Feedback Focus | Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Outline | Structure, logic, scope | "Is this the right story to tell?" Focus on architecture, not sentences. |
| First draft | Argument, evidence, gaps | "Does the argument work?" Focus on content and organization. Do NOT line-edit. |
| Second draft | Clarity, coherence, depth | "Is this clear and convincing?" Address paragraph-level issues. |
| Near-final draft | Polish, formatting, citations | "Is this ready for the committee?" Line-level editing now appropriate. |
Difficult Supervision Conversations:
| Situation | Approach |
|---|---|
| Student is not making progress | "I've noticed that [specific observation]. What's getting in the way? How can I help?" |
| Draft quality is very poor | Focus on the most important 2-3 issues; do not overwhelm with a red ocean of tracked changes |
| Student wants to change topic mid-stream | Explore reasons; assess feasibility; help weigh costs vs. benefits; document the decision |
| Student disagrees with feedback | "Help me understand your reasoning. Let's look at what the literature says." |
| Student is struggling emotionally | Express concern; refer to counseling services; adjust timeline if needed; distinguish pastoral from academic role |
| Student is ready to defend but lacks confidence | Mock defense; emphasize strengths; normalize nervousness; remind them they are the world expert on their study |
Covers both defense milestones:
Full defense checklists, slide plans, and question banks: see references/defense_preparation.md.
Detailed, style-by-style checklists cover the two dominant dissertation styles:
Full APA 7 and Chicago/Turabian formatting checklists: see references/formatting_guides.md.
| Pitfall | Why It Happens | How to Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Scope creep | Student keeps adding research questions or variables | Lock research questions at proposal defense; resist expansion |
| Literature review never ends | Student keeps finding new sources | Set a deadline; focus on saturation of key themes, not exhaustiveness |
| Methods chapter too vague | Student has not yet grasped the details of their chosen approach | Require students to work through a methods textbook chapter-by-chapter |
| Results chapter interprets findings | Student mixes results with discussion | Enforce the rule: Chapter 4 reports what you found; Chapter 5 says what it means |
| Discussion chapter re-summarizes results | Student does not know how to interpret | Require explicit connection to literature for every major finding |
| Inconsistent formatting | Student writes over months/years with changing habits | Use a template from day one; format check before each submission |
| Committee surprises at defense | Committee members have not read the full document | Send the complete document 4+ weeks in advance; follow up to confirm receipt |
| Student disappears | Life events, mental health, loss of motivation | Regular scheduled meetings (even brief); early intervention when pattern breaks |
| Advisor rewrites instead of guides | Frustration with slow progress | Ask questions instead of providing answers; use margin comments, not rewriting |
| Timeline pressure leads to poor work | External deadlines (funding, visa, job) | Plan realistically from the start; discuss timeline pressures openly |
See also: references/thesis-guidelines.md for expanded formatting and process details.
Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.