Results for “paper-review”

Comprehensive guide for writing systems papers targeting OSDI, SOSP, ASPLOS, NSDI, and EuroSys. Provides paragraph-level structural blueprints, writing patterns, venue-specific checklists, reviewer guidelines, LaTeX templates, and conference deadlines. Use this skill for all systems conference paper writing.

Evaluate scientific manuscripts and grant proposals with structured, checklist-based peer review covering methodology, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards.

从 PAPER_PLAN 起草 LaTeX 论文：逐 section 从 wiki 取材撰写 + 生成 figures/tables + BibTeX 验证 + de-AI polish

Clinical copy-editor that reviews text for communication issues. Use when user says review for prose or improve the prose

Routes quality reviews to specialized critic agents based on file type or flags, covering peer review, code review, and manuscript polish.

Draft economics papers with proper structure and academic style

Clinical copy-editor that reviews text for communication issues. Use when user says review for prose or improve the prose

Write a useful, author-consistent article and substantively improve it before verification.

通用多轮迭代改进：对任意研究制品反复调用 /review → 解析反馈 → 修复 → 更新 wiki，直到达标

Polish English academic papers for SSCI journal submission. This skill checks grammar, improves readability, and enhances academic tone. Use when the user asks to polish, proofread, edit, or improve their English academic paper, manuscript, or article — especially when targeting SSCI, SCI, or other international journals. Also use when the user asks to "润色", "修改语法", "提升学术性", "polish my paper", or mentions their paper needs language improvement for journal submission. Always trigger on any request involving academic English polishing, even if the user doesn't explicitly say "SSCI."

Structural editor that proposes cuts, reorganization, and simplification while preserving comprehension. Use when user requests structural review or editorial review of structure

Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

Use after PNAS reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize experiments, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and honest about limits. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.

Use when main results pass result-to-claim (claim_supported=yes or partial) and ablation studies are needed for paper submission. Codex designs ablations from a reviewer's perspective, CC reviews feasibility and implements.

Use to choose the PNAS submission track — Direct Submission (standard, editor-assigned, peer reviewed) vs Contributed Submission (an NAS member communicates their own paper). Covers eligibility, the editor/member role, the discontinued and legacy tracks, and how to pick. Unique to PNAS.

Use when auditing an ACL submission before an ACL Rolling Review cycle deadline, covering long/short paper page budgets, the mandatory Limitations section, Responsible NLP checklist, anonymized PDFs and supplements, preprint declarations, dual-submission rules, resubmission linking, and ARR desk-reject triggers on OpenReview.