Results for “manuscript-review”

Simulates a complete international journal peer review process with 5 dynamically configured reviewers, producing structured editorial decisions and revision roadmaps.

Provides reviewer-style audit and deep review for academic papers in LaTeX, Typst, and PDF formats, producing structured issue bundles, pass/fail gates, and revision roadmaps.

Use when serving as a peer reviewer and deciding whether and how AI may assist, when a manuscript under review must never be pasted into an external tool, or when a confidentiality-preserving review and disclosure are needed.

Use to plan a full ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research-Manuscript campaign backward from the mid-to-late-November manuscript deadline through the two-stage abstract-then-manuscript submission on Softconf, the winter review, the March notification, the April camera-ready and copyright for the ACM Digital Library, and the July conference in Long Beach — with the Engineering-Track and Late-Breaking-Results side calendars.

Simulates a full multi-reviewer journal review PANEL — 5 personas (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + a Devil's Advocate) debate a manuscript and produce a consensus Editorial Decision (accept/minor/major/reject) plus a prioritized Revision Roadmap. Modes: full, re-review (verify revisions addressed prior comments), quick, methodology-focus, Socratic guided. Use for: simulate peer review, mock review panel, editorial review before submission, multiple reviewer perspectives, re-review of a revised manuscript, or 'critique my paper hard'. For a single-reviewer referee report use alterlab-peer-review; for rubric/grade scoring use alterlab-scholar-eval; to write/revise the paper use alterlab-paper-writer. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.

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.

Revise an academic paper based on internal review comments. Reads review report or annotated manuscript, then applies revisions one by one with user approval. Trigger when user says "self revise" / "paper-selfrevise" / "内部修改" / "根据审稿意见修改".

Use when reviewer comments arrive and each one needs a tracked decision, when a revise and resubmit letter must map every comment to a manuscript change, or when contradictory reviewer demands need evidence-based, editor-facing framing.

Protocol-level two-agent paper writing workflow. Use when the user wants Codex to plan and review from global context while DeepSeek writes or revises the manuscript through the global deepseek-agent skill, with muxing-style-review used for explicit prose style checks.

通用跨模型审查：Review LLM 对任意研究制品进行独立评审，输出结构化评分、wiki 实体映射与改进建议

Draft performance reviews, self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback in your own voice using WorkIQ to surface actual contributions and structure them into impact-focused writing.

Review documentation and prose for compliance with writing guidelines, checking style, voice, and tone against a fetched rule set.

Reviews an academic paper using the NeurIPS review form with three reviewer personas, ensemble scoring, and reflection refinement. Extracts text from PDF, runs structured review, and outputs actionable feedback.

Use when a paper is complete or near-complete and a holistic pre-submission audit is needed. Cross-cuts text, code, tables, figures, results, citations, and reproducibility in a single pass and produces a persistent audit report. Works standalone on papers written outside the plugin.

规划、撰写、重构、润色、压缩、扩写、收口和审校中文医学文本，并为持续项目建立写作主控索引、内容型总纲、全文一致性账本、章节任务书、证据账本、决策记录和最终交付物清单。支持 Grant（医学基金标书、项目申请、研究目标、任务分解、技术路线、进度与甘特图、项目管理、风险分析、创新性、预期效益、研究基础和可行性论证）与 Journal（毕业论文、期刊论文、综述、病例报告、指南解读和学术报告），自动识别或联合调用全文建构、局部构篇、语言精修、结构审计、语言审计及项目收口。

Use when choosing a journal for a finished or nearly finished manuscript, when index status in Scopus, SSCI, ESCI, or TR Dizin must be confirmed, when a venue looks predatory, or when a cover letter needs drafting from the manuscript's actual claims.

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

Simulates a NeurIPS/SC/ICSE-style peer review with five reviewer personas (HPC, ML, Stats, Reproducibility, Devil's Advocate) that verify every claim against actual result data before submission.

Requesting Code Review

Orients researchers to an unfamiliar academic field by searching Consensus, building a strategic search plan with PICO or other frameworks, and synthesizing findings into a formatted Word document.

Perform thorough code reviews on files or pull requests, checking for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, and style violations. Use when the user requests code review or provides relevant inputs for this workflow.

帮助用户撰写高质量的文献综述类论文。提供从选题、文献检索、评估筛选、结构规划到最终写作的全流程指导。适用于需要撰写独立文献综述论文或学术论文中文献综述部分的用户。

针对 Modular RAG MCP Server 项目的老师式复习 Agent。按章节带领用户系统复习项目知识点，每道题互动问答、给出参考答案，复习结束后记录掌握进度，每次开始时回顾上次进度并建议继续或复习。Use when user says '复习项目', '帮我复习', '带我复习', '开始复习', '项目复习', 'review project', 'study review', '学习复习', '复盘', or wants to systematically review and study the project.

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

Comprehensive code review using specialized agents — orchestrates code, comments, tests, errors, types, and simplify agents sequentially.

Search, summarize, and synthesize economics literature. find research gaps, position your contribution.

Use after NEJM reviews arrive — often including a dedicated statistical reviewer and an editor letter — to triage the decision, answer statistical comments rigorously, and draft a point-by-point response that quotes each comment, the response, and the revised manuscript text. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.

Review generated code for style, security, and architecture issues; suggest refactorings and performance improvements. Use after implementation is complete, before merging changes, or when refactoring existing code. Follows OWASP guidelines, SOLID principles, and best practices for maintainable code.

Use when deciding which pnas-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a manuscript from significance test through reviewer rebuttal for PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

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