Stats
Actions
Tags
From research-lab-skills
Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/research-lab-skills:academic-paper-reviewerThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Simulates a complete international journal peer review process: automatically identifies the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewers (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) who review from four non-overlapping perspectives — methodology, domain expertise, cross-disciplinary viewpoints, and core argument challenges — ultimately producing a structured Editorial Decision ...
agents/devils_advocate_reviewer_agent.mdagents/domain_reviewer_agent.mdagents/editorial_synthesizer_agent.mdagents/eic_agent.mdagents/field_analyst_agent.mdagents/methodology_reviewer_agent.mdagents/perspective_reviewer_agent.mdexamples/hei_paper_review_example.mdexamples/interdisciplinary_review_example.mdexamples/subclaim_decomposition_example.mdreferences/calibration_mode_protocol.mdreferences/changelog.mdreferences/editorial_decision_standards.mdreferences/guided_mode_protocol.mdreferences/integration_guide.mdreferences/quality_rubrics.mdreferences/re_review_mode_protocol.mdreferences/review_criteria_framework.mdreferences/review_quality_thinking.mdreferences/sprint_contract_protocol.mdSimulates a complete international journal peer review process: automatically identifies the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewers (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) who review from four non-overlapping perspectives — methodology, domain expertise, cross-disciplinary viewpoints, and core argument challenges — ultimately producing a structured Editorial Decision and Revision Roadmap.
v1.1 Improvements:
re-review mode — verification review, focused on checking whether revisions address the review commentsRouting discipline (v3.9.2): see
.claude/CLAUDE.md"Routing Discipline (v3.9.2)" +shared/references/intent_clarification_protocol.mdfor cross-skill routing rules. This skill assumes routing has already settled — ambiguous cross-phase materials should have been clarified upstream.
Simplest command:
Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]
Output:
English: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy
| Scenario | Skill to Use |
|---|---|
| Need to write a paper (not review) | academic-paper |
| Need in-depth investigation of a research topic | deep-research |
| Need to revise a paper (already have review comments) | academic-paper (revision mode) |
| Your Situation | Recommended Mode | Spectrum |
|---|---|---|
| Need comprehensive review (first submission) | full | balanced |
| Checking if revisions addressed comments | re-review | fidelity |
| Quick quality assessment (15 min) | quick | fidelity |
| Focus only on methods/statistics | methodology-focus | fidelity |
| Want to learn by doing (guided review) | guided | originality |
| Want to know this reviewer's own error profile before trusting its scores | calibration | fidelity |
Spectrum (v3.2): fidelity = template-heavy, predictable output; balanced = default; originality = exploratory, template-light. See shared/mode_spectrum.md for the full cross-skill spectrum table.
Not sure? Use full for pre-submission review, re-review for post-revision verification. calibration is opt-in — run it once per domain when you want to know the reviewer's FNR/FPR before relying on its rubric scores.
| # | Agent | Role | Phase |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | field_analyst_agent | Analyzes the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewer identities | Phase 0 |
| 2 | eic_agent | Journal Editor-in-Chief — journal fit, originality, overall quality | Phase 1 |
| 3 | methodology_reviewer_agent | Peer Reviewer 1 — research design, statistical validity, reproducibility | Phase 1 |
| 4 | domain_reviewer_agent | Peer Reviewer 2 — literature coverage, theoretical framework, domain contribution | Phase 1 |
| 5 | perspective_reviewer_agent | Peer Reviewer 3 — cross-disciplinary connections, practical impact, challenging fundamental assumptions | Phase 1 |
| 6 | devils_advocate_reviewer_agent | Devil's Advocate — core argument challenges, logical fallacy detection, strongest counter-arguments | Phase 1 |
| 7 | editorial_synthesizer_agent | Synthesizes all reviews, identifies consensus and disagreements, makes editorial decision | Phase 2 |
User: "Review this paper"
|
=== Phase 0: FIELD ANALYSIS & PERSONA CONFIGURATION ===
|
+-> [field_analyst_agent] -> Reviewer Configuration Card (x5)
- Reads the complete paper
- Identifies: primary discipline, secondary discipline, research paradigm, methodology type, target journal tier, paper maturity
- Dynamically generates specific identities for 5 reviewers:
* EIC: Which journal's editor, area of expertise, review preferences
* Reviewer 1 (Methodology): Methodological expertise, what they particularly focus on
* Reviewer 2 (Domain): Domain expertise, research interests
* Reviewer 3 (Perspective): Cross-disciplinary angle, what unique perspective they bring
* Devil's Advocate: Specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical gaps
|
** Presents Reviewer Configuration to user for confirmation (adjustable) **
|
=== Phase 1: PARALLEL MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW ===
|
|-> [eic_agent] -------> EIC Review Report
| - Journal fit, originality, significance, relevance to readership
| - Does not go deep into methodology (that's Reviewer 1's job)
| - Sets the review tone
|
|-> [methodology_reviewer_agent] -> Methodology Review Report
| - Research design rigor, sampling strategy, data collection
| - Analysis method selection, statistical validity, effect sizes
| - Reproducibility, data transparency
|
|-> [domain_reviewer_agent] -------> Domain Review Report
| - Literature review completeness, theoretical framework appropriateness
| - Academic argument accuracy, incremental contribution to the field
| - Missing key references
|
|-> [perspective_reviewer_agent] --> Perspective Review Report
| - Cross-disciplinary connections and borrowing opportunities
| - Practical applications and policy implications
| - Broader social or ethical implications
|
+-> [devils_advocate_reviewer_agent] --> Devil's Advocate Report
- Core argument challenges (strongest counter-arguments)
- Cherry-picking detection
- Confirmation bias detection
- Logic chain validation
- Overgeneralization detection
- Alternative paths analysis
- Stakeholder blind spots
- "So what?" test
|
=== Phase 2: EDITORIAL SYNTHESIS & DECISION ===
|
+-> [editorial_synthesizer_agent] -> Editorial Decision Package
- Consolidates 5 reports (including Devil's Advocate challenges)
- Identifies consensus (5 agree) vs. disagreement (divergent opinions)
- Arbitration and argumentation for disputed issues
- Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues are specially flagged in the Editorial Decision
- Editorial Decision Letter
- Revision Roadmap (prioritized, can be directly input to academic-paper revision mode)
|
=== Phase 2.5: REVISION COACHING (Socratic Revision Guidance) ===
|
** Only triggered when Decision = Minor/Major Revision **
|
+-> [eic_agent] guides the user through Socratic dialogue:
1. Overall positioning — "After reading the review comments, what surprised you the most?"
2. Core issue focus — Guides user to understand consensus issues
3. Revision strategy — "If you could only change three things, which three would you choose?"
4. Counter-argument response — Guides user to think about how to respond to Devil's Advocate challenges
5. Implementation planning — Helps prioritize revisions
|
+-> After dialogue ends, produces:
- User's self-formulated revision strategy
- Reprioritized Revision Roadmap
|
** User can say "just fix it" to skip guidance **
academic-paper-reviewer runs in 3 phases internally (Phase 0 field analysis → Phase 1 panel review → Phase 2 editorial synthesis). Within the full ARS pipeline, this skill sits at the orchestrator's Phase 5 (Review), but each agent inside the reviewer skill is single-phase relative to the skill's own phase numbering.
Two invocation modes:
Mode A — orchestrator-driven (default): pipeline_orchestrator_agent (in academic-pipeline skill) dispatches academic-paper-reviewer as part of the full ARS pipeline Stage 3 (Review).
Mode B — phase-by-phase (cross-session resume): User invokes one reviewer agent per phase across sessions, or runs the full reviewer panel standalone via /ars-review equivalent.
In Mode B, single-phase agents (Bucket A per docs/design/2026-05-18-ars-v3.9.2-agent-phase-classification.md) stay strictly within their assigned phase for writes. The 6 Bucket A agents in academic-paper-reviewer are: eic_agent, methodology_reviewer, domain_reviewer, perspective_reviewer, devils_advocate_reviewer (all Phase 1 panel) + editorial_synthesizer (Phase 2 synthesis). Reading the full paper draft is expected for all reviewers — without context they cannot evaluate.
The 1 Bucket D agent (field_analyst at Phase 0) is meta — it configures the panel; no boundary fence needed.
The v3.6.2 Sprint Contract Protocol (paper-blind Phase 1 + paper-visible Phase 2 + data delimiter) additionally constrains all reviewer agents' within-phase discipline. Phase Boundary (phase scope) and Sprint Contract (within-phase paper-blind/paper-visible discipline) both apply — neither overrides the other.
Routing into Mode B requires explicit user signal — /ars-<mode> slash command or [direct-mode] prefix. Ambiguous cross-phase input defaults to clarification per .claude/CLAUDE.md Routing Discipline + shared/references/intent_clarification_protocol.md.
Enforcement (v3.9.2): prompt-level via Phase Boundary blocks on Bucket A agents + advisory verifier (scripts/check_pipeline_integrity.py). Deterministic PreToolUse hook + multi-phase envelope deferred to v3.10 active conductor (#134).
| Mode | Trigger | Agents | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
full | Default / "full review" | All 7 agents | 5 review reports + Editorial Decision + Revision Roadmap |
re-review | Pipeline Stage 3' / "verification review" | field_analyst + eic + editorial_synthesizer | Revision response checklist + residual issues + new Decision |
quick | "quick review" | field_analyst + eic | EIC quick assessment + key issues list (15-minute version) |
methodology-focus | "check methodology" | field_analyst + eic + methodology_reviewer | In-depth methodology review report (panel 2 under v3.6.2 sprint contract: EIC + methodology) |
guided | "guide me" | All + Socratic dialogue | Socratic issue-by-issue guided review |
calibration (v3.2) | "calibrate reviewer" / "measure reviewer accuracy" | All 7 agents, 5x per gold paper, cross-model default-on | Calibration Report: FNR/FPR/balanced accuracy/AUC + per-dimension calibration error + session-scoped confidence disclosure |
"Review this paper" -> full
"Give me a quick look at this paper" -> quick
"Help me check the methodology" -> methodology-focus
"Does this paper have methodology issues"-> methodology-focus
"Guide me to improve this paper" -> guided
"Walk me through the issues in my paper" -> guided
"Verification review" / "Check revisions"-> re-review
"How accurate is your review scoring?" -> calibration
"Calibrate against these 10 papers" -> calibration
Dedicated mode for Pipeline Stage 3' — verifies whether revisions address first-round review comments. Uses R&R Traceability Matrix (Schema 11) with Author's Claim + Verified? columns.
Input: Original Revision Roadmap + Revised manuscript + Response to Reviewers (optional) Output: Verification Review Report with traceability matrix + new issues + Decision
See
references/re_review_mode_protocol.mdfor full verification logic, output format template, and Socratic guidance details.
Helps authors understand problems themselves through progressive revelation. EIC opens with strengths, then gradually introduces deeper issues from each reviewer perspective.
See
references/guided_mode_protocol.mdfor dialogue flow, rules, and progressive revelation sequence.
Opt-in mode that measures this reviewer's FNR / FPR / balanced accuracy against a user-supplied gold set (5-20 papers with known outcomes). Runs full 5x per paper with fresh context, cross-model default-on. Produces a Calibration Report attached as a confidence disclosure to subsequent reviews in the session.
See
references/calibration_mode_protocol.mdfor full spec: intake rules, ensembling methodology, output format, and failure cases this mode does not fix.
Each reviewer's report structure is detailed in templates/peer_review_report_template.md.
The Devil's Advocate uses a dedicated format, not the standard reviewer template:
The Editorial Decision Letter structure is detailed in templates/editorial_decision_template.md.
deep-research --> academic-paper --> [integrity check] --> academic-paper-reviewer --> academic-paper (revision) --> academic-paper-reviewer (re-review) --> [final integrity] --> finalize
(research) (writing) (integrity audit) (review) (revision) (verification review) (final verification) (finalization)
| Integration Direction | Description |
|---|---|
| Upstream: academic-paper -> reviewer | Receives the complete paper output from academic-paper full mode, directly enters Phase 0 |
| Upstream: integrity check -> reviewer | In the Pipeline, the paper must pass integrity check before entering reviewer |
| Downstream: reviewer -> academic-paper | The Revision Roadmap format can be directly used as reviewer feedback input for academic-paper revision mode |
| Downstream: reviewer (re-review) -> integrity | After re-review completes, proceeds to final integrity verification |
See
references/integration_guide.mdfor a complete 9-step pipeline usage example.
| Agent | Definition File |
|---|---|
| field_analyst_agent | agents/field_analyst_agent.md |
| eic_agent | agents/eic_agent.md |
| methodology_reviewer_agent | agents/methodology_reviewer_agent.md |
| domain_reviewer_agent | agents/domain_reviewer_agent.md |
| perspective_reviewer_agent | agents/perspective_reviewer_agent.md |
| devils_advocate_reviewer_agent | agents/devils_advocate_reviewer_agent.md |
| editorial_synthesizer_agent | agents/editorial_synthesizer_agent.md |
| Reference | Purpose | Used By |
|---|---|---|
references/review_criteria_framework.md | Structured review criteria framework (differentiated by paper type) | all reviewers |
references/top_journals_by_field.md | Top journal lists for major academic fields (EIC role calibration) | field_analyst, eic |
references/editorial_decision_standards.md | Accept/Minor/Major/Reject criteria and decision matrix | eic, editorial_synthesizer |
references/statistical_reporting_standards.md | Statistical reporting standards + APA 7.0 format quick reference + red flag list | methodology_reviewer |
references/quality_rubrics.md | Calibrated 0-100 scoring rubrics for 7 review dimensions with decision mapping | all reviewers |
references/review_quality_thinking.md | Cognitive framework for review quality: three lenses (internal validity, external validity, contribution), common reviewer traps, calibration questions | all reviewers |
references/re_review_mode_protocol.md | Full re-review verification logic, R&R traceability output format, Socratic guidance after re-review | eic, editorial_synthesizer |
references/guided_mode_protocol.md | Guided mode dialogue flow, progressive revelation sequence, dialogue rules | all reviewers |
references/calibration_mode_protocol.md | Calibration mode: FNR/FPR/balanced accuracy measurement against user-supplied gold set, 5x ensembling, session-scoped confidence disclosure (v3.2) | all reviewers |
references/integration_guide.md | Complete 9-step pipeline usage example | — |
references/changelog.md | Full version history | — |
| Template | Purpose |
|---|---|
templates/peer_review_report_template.md | Review report template used by each reviewer |
templates/editorial_decision_template.md | EIC final decision letter template |
templates/revision_response_template.md | Revision response template for authors (R->A->C format) |
| Example | Demonstrates |
|---|---|
examples/hei_paper_review_example.md | Full review example: "Impact of Declining Birth Rates on Management Strategies of Taiwan's Private Universities" |
examples/interdisciplinary_review_example.md | Cross-disciplinary review example: "Using Machine Learning to Predict University Closure Risk in Taiwan" |
Explicit prohibitions to prevent common failure modes, especially during long conversations:
| # | Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Correct Behavior |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fabricating review comments | Synthesizer invents critique not in any reviewer report | Every synthesis point must trace to a specific Phase 1 reviewer report |
| 2 | Duplicate criticisms across reviewers | R1/R2/R3 raise identical points = fake diversity | Each reviewer has a distinct perspective; overlapping topics get different angles |
| 3 | Ignoring Devil's Advocate CRITICAL findings | Editorial Decision says Accept despite DA flagging critical issues | If DA finds CRITICAL → Decision cannot be Accept (Checkpoint Rule #4) |
| 4 | Rubber-stamp re-review | Re-review says "all addressed" without verification | Each concern must be independently verified against the revised manuscript |
| 5 | Sycophantic score inflation | Giving 8/10 to mediocre work to avoid conflict | Scores must be evidence-based; a paper with methodology gaps cannot score >6 on rigor |
| 6 | Editing the manuscript | Reviewer "helpfully" fixes the paper directly | READ-ONLY: produce reports, never modify the paper (Checkpoint Rule #6) |
| 7 | Generic feedback | "The methodology could be stronger" without specifics | Every criticism must include: what's wrong, where it is, and a proposed fix |
| Dimension | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Perspective differentiation | Each reviewer's review must come from a different angle; no duplicate criticisms |
| Evidence-based | EIC's decision must be based on specific reviewer comments; no fabrication |
| Specificity | Reviews must cite specific passages, data, or page numbers from the paper; no vague comments |
| Balance | Strengths and Weaknesses must be balanced; cannot only criticize without affirming |
| Professional tone | Review tone must be professional and constructive; avoid personal attacks or demeaning language |
| Actionability | Each weakness must include specific improvement suggestions |
| Format consistency | All reports must follow the template structure; no freestyle |
| Devil's Advocate completeness | Devil's Advocate must produce the strongest counter-argument; cannot be omitted |
| CRITICAL threshold | ⚠️ IRON RULE: Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues cannot be ignored by the Editorial Decision |
Follows the paper's language. Academic terms remain in English. User can override (e.g., "review this Chinese paper in English").
| Skill | Relationship |
|---|---|
academic-paper | Upstream (provides paper) + Downstream (receives revision roadmap) |
deep-research | Upstream (provides research foundation) |
tw-hei-intelligence | Auxiliary (verifies higher education data accuracy) |
academic-pipeline | Orchestrated by (Stage 3 + Stage 3') |
reviewer_full, reviewer_methodology_focus) now run two-call Phase 1 (paper-content-blind) + Phase 2 (paper-visible) orchestration. See references/sprint_contract_protocol.md.panel_size, acceptance_dimensions, failure_conditions (with severity precedence + cross_reviewer_quantifier panel-relative thresholds), measurement_procedure, optional override_ladder, bounded agent_amendments. Validator: scripts/check_sprint_contract.py. Schema: shared/sprint_contract.schema.json.agents/editorial_synthesizer_agent.md.reviewer_methodology_focus mode runs a 2-reviewer panel (EIC + methodology only) instead of the default 5.shared/contracts/reviewer/full.json (panel 5) and shared/contracts/reviewer/methodology_focus.json (panel 2). Reserved modes (reviewer_re_review, reviewer_calibration, reviewer_guided) keep pre-v3.6.2 behaviour until follow-up patch templates land.| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Skill Version | 1.10.0 |
| Last Updated | 2026-06-01 |
| Maintainer | Cheng-I Wu |
| Dependent Skills | academic-paper v1.0+ (upstream/downstream integration) |
| Role | Multi-perspective academic paper review simulator |
See
references/changelog.mdfor full version history.
npx claudepluginhub starpig1129/research-lab-skills --plugin lab-toolsCreates, edits, and optimizes skills for Claude Code, including drafting, evaluating with test prompts, iterating on performance, and improving skill descriptions for better triggering accuracy.