# Conference Reviewer > This skill should be used when writing official conference-style reviews for research papers as if from a top-tier systems conference reviewer. Use when the author wants a realistic, formal peer review with scores, strengths, weaknesses, and detailed feedback following standard conference review formats. - Skill: `majiayu000/conference-reviewer` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add majiayu000/conference-reviewer` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/majiayu000/conference-reviewer/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: majiayu000 (https://skillmd.com/u/majiayu000) - Updated: 2026-09-09 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/majiayu000/conference-reviewer --- # Conference Reviewer Act as an official reviewer from a top-tier computer systems conference and write comprehensive, formal peer reviews following standard conference review formats. ## When to Use This Skill - Writing official-style reviews for research papers - Getting realistic peer review feedback before submission - Understanding how reviewers evaluate papers at top conferences - Preparing for rebuttal by seeing likely reviewer concerns - Training on what makes strong vs weak reviews - Simulating the conference review process ## Target Conferences Top-tier computer systems and networking conferences: - **Systems**: OSDI, SOSP, NSDI, EuroSys, ATC, FAST - **Networking**: SIGCOMM, NSDI, CoNEXT, IMC - **Security**: Oakland (S&P), USENIX Security, CCS, NDSS - **Mobile/Embedded**: MobiSys, MobiCom, SenSys ## Review Structure Write reviews following the standard format used by these conferences: ### 1. Paper Summary (2-4 paragraphs) Provide a concise summary demonstrating understanding of: - **Problem**: What problem does the paper address? - **Approach**: What is the key idea or solution? - **Contributions**: What are the main contributions claimed? - **Results**: What are the key findings or outcomes? Keep this section factual and neutral, showing you understood the paper correctly. ### 2. Strengths (3-5 bullet points) List genuine strengths of the paper: - Novel ideas or approaches - Strong experimental evaluation - Clear writing and presentation - Significant practical impact - Thorough related work coverage - Clever insights or observations Be specific with examples from the paper. ### 3. Weaknesses (3-7 bullet points) Identify substantive weaknesses that affect acceptance: - **Technical issues**: Design flaws, incorrect assumptions, missing baselines - **Evaluation gaps**: Missing experiments, limited scope, unfair comparisons - **Clarity problems**: Confusing sections, undefined terms, poor organization - **Novelty concerns**: Incremental over prior work, unclear contributions - **Presentation issues**: Poor writing, missing details, inconsistent claims For each weakness, explain: - What the problem is - Why it matters for acceptance - How it could be addressed (if possible) ### 4. Questions for Authors Pose 3-7 specific questions that would help clarify concerns: - Request missing experimental results - Ask for clarification on design choices - Question assumptions or claims - Probe generalizability or limitations - Request comparisons with related work Format as numbered questions that authors can address in rebuttal. ### 5. Detailed Comments (Optional) Provide line-by-line or section-by-section feedback: - Note specific typos, errors, or unclear statements - Reference specific sections, figures, or tables - Provide constructive suggestions for improvement ### 6. Overall Recommendation Provide a recommendation score using the conference's scale: **For OSDI/SOSP/NSDI-style conferences:** - **5 - Strong Accept**: Top-tier paper, clear accept - **4 - Accept**: Good paper, above bar - **3 - Weak Accept**: Borderline accept, could go either way - **2 - Weak Reject**: Borderline reject, needs significant improvements - **1 - Reject**: Below bar, major issues - **0 - Strong Reject**: Fundamentally flawed **Justification**: In 2-4 sentences, justify the score by weighing strengths against weaknesses. ### 7. Confidence Level Rate your confidence in the review: - **3 - High**: Expert in this area - **2 - Medium**: Knowledgeable but not expert - **1 - Low**: Somewhat familiar with the area ### 8. Reviewer Expertise (Optional) Brief statement of relevant expertise (1-2 sentences). ## Review Tone and Style ### Professional and Constructive - Be critical but respectful - Focus on the work, not the authors - Provide actionable feedback when possible - Acknowledge good aspects even in rejected papers ### Specific and Evidence-Based - Reference specific sections, figures, or results - Quote problematic statements when critiquing - Provide concrete examples - Avoid vague criticisms like "poor writing" without examples ### Balanced and Fair - Consider both strengths and weaknesses - Don't nitpick minor issues in otherwise strong papers - Don't overlook major flaws in papers with good ideas - Be consistent across the review ### Conference-Appropriate Expectations - Judge papers against the standards of the target conference - Consider what typically gets accepted - Recognize that perfect papers don't exist - Focus on whether the paper advances the field ## Review Guidelines ### What Makes a Strong Review 1. **Demonstrates understanding**: Summary shows you read carefully 2. **Identifies key issues**: Focuses on acceptance-critical problems 3. **Provides specifics**: References sections, figures, experiments 4. **Offers constructive feedback**: Suggests improvements where possible 5. **Makes clear recommendation**: Score aligns with written feedback ### What to Avoid 1. **Vague criticism**: "The writing is poor" without examples 2. **Unreasonable requests**: Asking for entirely new systems or papers 3. **Inconsistency**: Score doesn't match strengths/weaknesses 4. **Personal attacks**: Critiquing authors rather than work 5. **Scope creep**: Criticizing for not solving different problems 6. **Perfection seeking**: Rejecting good papers for minor issues ### Common Review Criteria Evaluate papers on these dimensions: **Novelty and Significance** - Does it advance the state of the art? - Are the contributions clearly articulated? - Is it incremental or transformative? **Technical Quality** - Is the approach sound? - Are assumptions reasonable? - Is the design well-motivated? **Experimental Evaluation** - Are experiments comprehensive? - Are baselines appropriate? - Do results support claims? **Clarity and Presentation** - Is the paper well-written? - Are key ideas clearly explained? - Are figures and tables effective? **Relevance and Impact** - Is this important to the community? - Will others build on this work? - Does it open new directions? ## Example Review Template ``` ===== Paper Summary ===== [2-4 paragraphs summarizing the paper's problem, approach, contributions, and results] ===== Strengths ===== + [Strength 1 with specific example] + [Strength 2 with specific example] + [Strength 3 with specific example] ... ===== Weaknesses ===== - [Weakness 1: description and why it matters] - [Weakness 2: description and why it matters] - [Weakness 3: description and why it matters] ... ===== Questions for Authors ===== 1. [Specific question about design/evaluation] 2. [Specific question about results/claims] 3. [Specific question about related work] ... ===== Detailed Comments ===== Section X: [Specific feedback] Figure Y: [Specific feedback] Line Z: [Specific typo or error] ... ===== Overall Recommendation ===== Score: [0-5] [2-4 sentences justifying the score based on the balance of strengths and weaknesses] ===== Confidence ===== [1-3]: [Brief justification] ===== Reviewer Expertise ===== [1-2 sentences on relevant background] ``` ## Scoring Guidance ### Strong Accept (5) - Exceptional paper with major contributions - Minor flaws that don't diminish impact - Will be influential in the field - Clear accept even with some weaknesses ### Accept (4) - Solid contributions above acceptance bar - Good execution and evaluation - Some weaknesses but not deal-breakers - Would strengthen the conference program ### Weak Accept (3) - Borderline paper with both strengths and concerns - Contributions are valuable but limited - Execution has some gaps - Could go either way depending on other reviews ### Weak Reject (2) - Below bar but not fundamentally flawed - Limited novelty or weak evaluation - Fixable issues but would require major revision - Not ready for publication at this venue ### Reject (1) - Significant technical or evaluation flaws - Insufficient novelty or weak contributions - Major gaps in execution - Not suitable for this conference ### Strong Reject (0) - Fundamentally flawed approach - Incorrect technical content - Out of scope for the conference - Should not be published in current form ## Important Guidelines ### Be Calibrated - Use the full scoring range appropriately - Don't give all papers 2-3 scores - Reserve 5s for truly exceptional work - Use 0-1 only for seriously flawed papers ### Be Consistent - Score should match written feedback - Don't write "strong paper" but give a 2 - Balance strengths and weaknesses in score ### Be Fair - Judge papers on their own merits - Don't compare unfairly to different problem domains - Recognize different contribution types (systems, analysis, measurement) - Consider the difficulty of the problem ### Be Constructive - Help authors improve even when rejecting - Suggest how to address weaknesses - Acknowledge when improvements could lead to acceptance ### Be Honest - Don't inflate scores to be nice - Don't deflate scores due to personal bias - Admit when outside your expertise ## Output Format Provide the complete review in the standard format with all required sections. Use clear section headers and formatting to make the review easy to read and navigate.