# Scholar Review > Systematic academic paper review workflow covering self-review before submission and rebuttal writing after receiving reviewer feedback. Triggers on "review paper", "self-review", "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "analyze review comments", "paper review". - Skill: `catlog22/scholar-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 7 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add catlog22/scholar-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/catlog22/scholar-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Productivity - Author: catlog22 (https://skillmd.com/u/catlog22) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/catlog22/scholar-review --- # Scholar Review A structured workflow for academic paper review and rebuttal. Covers two modes: (1) pre-submission self-review to identify and fix weaknesses before submitting, and (2) post-review rebuttal writing to respond professionally to reviewer feedback. ## Pre-load (before execution) 1. **Codebase docs**: If `.workflow/codebase/ARCHITECTURE.md` exists, read for project context 2. **Specs**: `maestro load --type spec --category coding` — load coding conventions 3. **Wiki knowledge**: `maestro search "academic writing research paper" --json` — top 5 entries as prior context 4. All optional — proceed without if unavailable ## Architecture Overview ``` scholar-review | [Preference Collection] / \ Pre-Submission Post-Review | / | \ +-----------+ +--------+--------+---------+ | Phase 1 | | Phase 2| Phase 3| Phase 4 | | Self- | | Review | Response| Rebuttal| | Review | | Analysis| Strategy| Writing| +-----------+ +--------+--------+---------+ | \ | / v v v v self-review- rebuttal-response.md report.md | v +-----------+ | Phase 5 | | Revision | +-----------+ | v revised-paper ``` ## Key Design Principles 1. **Mode-driven execution**: Pre-submission triggers Phase 1 only; post-review triggers Phases 2-5 sequentially 2. **Evidence-based review**: Every finding must reference specific sections, pages, or line numbers 3. **Professional tone**: All rebuttal output follows academic tone guidelines (grateful, respectful, evidence-based) 4. **Completeness**: Every reviewer comment must receive a response; no comment is skipped 5. **Actionable output**: Each phase produces concrete artifacts, not abstract advice ## Interactive Preference Collection Collect workflow preferences before dispatching to phases: ``` Ask the user: 1. Review Stage: - "Pre-submission self-review" → Execute Phase 1 only - "Post-review rebuttal" → Execute Phases 2-5 2. Paper Location: - Path to paper file(s) or directory 3. (If post-review) Reviewer Comments Location: - Path to reviewer comments file(s) 4. (If post-review) Target Venue: - Conference/journal name (e.g., NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR, ACL) - "Other" with custom venue name 5. Auto Mode: - "Interactive (Recommended)" → Confirm at each phase transition - "Auto" → Execute all applicable phases without confirmation Store as workflowPreferences: - mode: "pre-submission" | "post-review" - paperPath: string - reviewCommentsPath: string (post-review only) - targetVenue: string - autoYes: boolean ``` ## Execution Flow > **COMPACT DIRECTIVE**: Context compression MUST check TodoWrite phase status. > The phase currently marked `in_progress` is the active execution phase -- preserve its FULL content. > Only compress phases marked `completed` or `pending`. ### Pre-Submission Mode ``` Phase 1: Self-Review Ref: phases/01-self-review.md Input: paperPath, targetVenue Output: self-review-report.md TodoWrite: Mark Phase 1 in_progress → completed ``` ### Post-Review Mode ``` Phase 2: Review Analysis Ref: phases/02-review-analysis.md Input: reviewCommentsPath, paperPath Output: review-analysis.md (classified comments with priorities) TodoWrite: Mark Phase 2 in_progress → completed Phase 3: Response Strategy Ref: phases/03-response-strategy.md Input: review-analysis.md, paperPath Output: response-strategy.md (strategy per comment) TodoWrite: Mark Phase 3 in_progress → completed Phase 4: Rebuttal Writing Ref: phases/04-rebuttal-writing.md Input: response-strategy.md, paperPath, targetVenue Output: rebuttal-response.md TodoWrite: Mark Phase 4 in_progress → completed Phase 5: Revision Ref: phases/05-revision.md Input: rebuttal-response.md, paperPath Output: revision-plan.md, tracked changes list TodoWrite: Mark Phase 5 in_progress → completed ``` **Phase Reference Documents** (read on-demand when phase executes): | Phase | Document | Purpose | Compact | |-------|----------|---------|---------| | 1 | [phases/01-self-review.md](phases/01-self-review.md) | Pre-submission quality check | TodoWrite driven | | 2 | [phases/02-review-analysis.md](phases/02-review-analysis.md) | Parse and classify reviewer comments | TodoWrite driven | | 3 | [phases/03-response-strategy.md](phases/03-response-strategy.md) | Plan rebuttal strategy per comment | TodoWrite driven + sentinel | | 4 | [phases/04-rebuttal-writing.md](phases/04-rebuttal-writing.md) | Write structured rebuttal document | TodoWrite driven + sentinel | | 5 | [phases/05-revision.md](phases/05-revision.md) | Plan and track paper revisions | TodoWrite driven | **Compact Rules**: 1. **TodoWrite `in_progress`** -> Preserve full content, do not compress 2. **TodoWrite `completed`** -> May compress to summary 3. **Sentinel fallback** -> Phases marked with sentinel contain compact sentinels; if only sentinel remains without full Step protocol, immediately `Read()` to recover ## Core Rules 1. **Read paper first**: Always read the full paper before any review or analysis 2. **Classify before responding**: Never write rebuttals without completing review analysis and strategy 3. **No skipped comments**: Every reviewer comment must have a response entry 4. **Venue-aware tone**: Adjust strategy and emphasis based on target venue conventions 5. **Preserve reviewer numbering**: Maintain original reviewer IDs and comment numbering throughout ## Input Processing ``` User input → Structured format: PAPER: [path to paper files] MODE: [pre-submission | post-review] REVIEWS: [path to reviewer comments] (post-review only) VENUE: [target conference/journal] OUTPUT_DIR: [directory for generated documents] ``` ## Data Flow ``` paperPath ──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ v │ Phase 1: self-review-report.md │ (Pre-submission mode ends here) │ │ reviewCommentsPath ─── Phase 2: review-analysis.md ──────────┤ │ │ v │ Phase 3: response-strategy.md ───────────┤ │ │ v │ Phase 4: rebuttal-response.md ───────────┤ │ │ v │ Phase 5: revision-plan.md ────── paperPath ``` ## TodoWrite Pattern ### Phase Attachment (entering phase) ``` TodoWrite([ { id: "phase-N", task: "Phase N: [name]", status: "in_progress" }, { id: "phase-N-step-1", task: " Step N.1: [name]", status: "pending" }, { id: "phase-N-step-2", task: " Step N.2: [name]", status: "pending" } ]) ``` ### Phase Collapse (exiting phase) ``` TodoWrite([ { id: "phase-N", task: "Phase N: [name] -- Done", status: "completed" }, { id: "phase-N+1", task: "Phase N+1: [name]", status: "in_progress" } ]) ``` ## Error Handling 1. **Paper not found**: Ask user to confirm paper path, retry once 2. **Reviews not parseable**: Ask user to reformat or paste reviews directly 3. **Phase failure**: Log error, ask user whether to retry or skip to next phase 4. **Venue unknown**: Fall back to generic academic review conventions ## Coordinator Checklist ### Before Each Phase - [ ] Confirm input files exist and are readable - [ ] TodoWrite updated: current phase `in_progress` - [ ] Read phase document via `Ref:` marker ### After Each Phase - [ ] Output file generated and saved - [ ] TodoWrite updated: current phase `completed` - [ ] If not autoYes, confirm with user before next phase ### Post-Workflow - [ ] All output files listed for user - [ ] Summary of findings/actions presented