Paper Review

Academic Paper Review Skill

Overview

This skill provides comprehensive peer review of academic papers for top-tier computer science conferences and journals. It evaluates papers against standard academic criteria including originality, technical quality, experimental validation, clarity, and significance.

Supported Input Formats

1. PDF files: Direct analysis of compiled papers
2. LaTeX files: Analysis of source .tex files

Review Process

Step 1: Gather Review Context

Before starting the review, use AskUserQuestion to gather:

1. Output Language: Ask whether the review should be in Chinese or English
2. Target Venue: Ask for the conference or journal name (e.g., "NeurIPS 2026", "CVPR 2026", "ICML 2026", "TPAMI")

Example interaction:

AskUserQuestion with two questions:
1. "What language should the review be written in?"
   - Options: "English", "Chinese (中文)"
2. "What is the target conference or journal for this paper?"
   - Options: "NeurIPS", "CVPR", "ICML", "ICLR", "Other (please specify)"

Step 2: Extract Paper Content

For PDF files:

import pdfplumber

with pdfplumber.open(pdf_path) as pdf:
    full_text = ""
    for page in pdf.pages:
        full_text += page.extract_text() + "\n\n"

For LaTeX files:

# Read main .tex file and any \input or \include files
import re

def read_latex_file(filepath):
    with open(filepath, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
        content = f.read()

    # Find \input{} and \include{} commands
    includes = re.findall(r'\\(?:input|include)\{([^}]+)\}', content)

    # Read included files recursively
    for inc in includes:
        if not inc.endswith('.tex'):
            inc += '.tex'
        inc_path = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(filepath), inc)
        if os.path.exists(inc_path):
            inc_content = read_latex_file(inc_path)
            content = content.replace(f'\\input{{{inc}}}', inc_content)
            content = content.replace(f'\\include{{{inc}}}', inc_content)

    return content

Step 3: Analyze Paper Structure

Extract and identify key sections:

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Related Work
• Methodology/Approach
• Experiments/Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• References

Step 4: Conduct Comprehensive Review

Evaluate the paper across these dimensions:

1. Originality & Novelty (Score: X/10)

• Is the problem new or is the approach novel?
• How does it differ from existing work?
• Are the contributions clearly stated?
• Confidence Level: 1-5 (1=Not familiar, 5=Expert)

2. Technical Quality & Soundness (Score: X/10)

• Are the methods technically sound?
• Are claims supported by theory or evidence?
• Are there any technical errors or gaps?
• Confidence Level: 1-5

3. Experimental Validation (Score: X/10)

• Are experiments comprehensive and well-designed?
• Are baselines appropriate and comparisons fair?
• Are results statistically significant?
• Are ablation studies included?
• Confidence Level: 1-5

4. Clarity & Presentation (Score: X/10)

• Is the paper well-written and organized?
• Are concepts explained clearly?
• Is the notation consistent?
• Are there grammar or language issues?
• Confidence Level: 1-5

5. Significance & Impact (Score: X/10)

• How important is this work to the field?
• What is the potential impact?
• Does it open new research directions?
• Confidence Level: 1-5

6. Reproducibility (Score: X/10)

Check for:

• Code availability (mentioned or provided)
• Dataset descriptions and availability
• Hyperparameter details
• Experimental setup completeness
• Computational requirements
• Confidence Level: 1-5

7. Visual Elements Quality

Evaluate:

• Figures: clarity, relevance, quality
• Tables: completeness, formatting, readability
• Diagrams: accuracy, helpfulness
• Captions: informativeness

8. Ethics & Limitations

Assess:

• Discussion of limitations
• Potential negative societal impacts
• Ethical considerations
• Broader impact statement (if required by venue)

Step 5: Generate Overall Assessment

Calculate overall score as weighted average:

• Originality: 20%
• Technical Quality: 25%
• Experimental Validation: 20%
• Clarity: 15%
• Significance: 15%
• Reproducibility: 5%

Provide recommendation:

• Strong Accept (9-10): Exceptional paper, clear accept
• Accept (8-8.9): Good paper, should be accepted
• Weak Accept (7-7.9): Above threshold, leaning accept
• Borderline (6-6.9): On the fence, could go either way
• Weak Reject (5-5.9): Below threshold, leaning reject
• Reject (4-4.9): Clear reject, significant issues
• Strong Reject (1-3.9): Fundamental flaws, strong reject

Step 6: Write Review Document

Create review-{paper-name}-{timestamp}.md with this structure:

# Paper Review: [Paper Title]

**Venue:** [Conference/Journal Name]
**Review Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM]
**Review Language:** [Chinese/English]
**Reviewer:** Claude AI Assistant

---

## Overall Recommendation

- **Decision:** [Strong Accept / Accept / Weak Accept / Borderline / Weak Reject / Reject / Strong Reject]
- **Overall Score:** [X.X/10]
- **Confidence:** [5-Expert in this area / 4-Knowledgeable / 3-Familiar / 2-Somewhat familiar / 1-Not familiar]

---

## Summary

[2-3 paragraph summary covering:
- What the paper is about
- Main contributions
- Key strengths and weaknesses
- Overall assessment]

---

## Strengths

- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]
- [Strength 3]
- ...

---

## Weaknesses

- [Weakness 1]
- [Weakness 2]
- [Weakness 3]
- ...

---

## Detailed Evaluation

### 1. Originality & Novelty
**Score:** X/10 | **Confidence:** X/5

[Detailed assessment of novelty, comparison with related work, clarity of contributions]

### 2. Technical Quality & Soundness
**Score:** X/10 | **Confidence:** X/5

[Assessment of technical correctness, theoretical foundations, methodology soundness]

### 3. Experimental Validation
**Score:** X/10 | **Confidence:** X/5

[Evaluation of experimental design, baselines, results, ablation studies, statistical significance]

### 4. Clarity & Presentation
**Score:** X/10 | **Confidence:** X/5

[Assessment of writing quality, organization, notation, figures, readability]

### 5. Significance & Impact
**Score:** X/10 | **Confidence:** X/5

[Evaluation of importance, potential impact, relevance to community]

### 6. Reproducibility
**Score:** X/10 | **Confidence:** X/5

[Assessment of code availability, dataset details, hyperparameters, experimental setup]

### 7. Visual Elements Quality

[Analysis of figures, tables, and diagrams - clarity, completeness, appropriateness]

### 8. Ethics & Limitations

[Discussion of ethical considerations, limitations, broader impact, potential negative consequences]

---

## Questions for Authors

1. [Question 1]
2. [Question 2]
3. [Question 3]
...

---

## Suggestions for Rebuttal

[Constructive guidance on how authors might address the main concerns raised in this review. Focus on the most critical issues that could change the recommendation if addressed.]

---

## Minor Issues

- [Typo/formatting issue 1]
- [Reference issue 2]
- [Minor suggestion 3]
...

---

## Detailed Comments by Section

### Abstract
[Comments on abstract]

### Introduction
[Comments on introduction]

### Related Work
[Comments on related work section]

### Methodology
[Comments on methodology]

### Experiments
[Comments on experiments]

### Conclusion
[Comments on conclusion]

---

**End of Review**

Step 7: Generate Improvement Plan

Create improvements-{paper-name}-{timestamp}.md with categorized TODO items:

# Paper Improvement Plan

**Paper:** [Paper Title]
**Generated:** [YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM]

This document provides a structured improvement plan based on the review. Items are categorized by priority and type.

---

## 🔴 Critical Issues (Must Address)

These issues significantly impact the paper's acceptance chances and must be addressed.

- [ ] **[Issue 1 Title]**
  - **Location:** [Section/Page]
  - **Problem:** [Description of the issue]
  - **Suggested Fix:** [How to address it]
  - **Estimated Effort:** [High/Medium/Low]

- [ ] **[Issue 2 Title]**
  - **Location:** [Section/Page]
  - **Problem:** [Description]
  - **Suggested Fix:** [Solution]
  - **Estimated Effort:** [High/Medium/Low]

---

## 🟡 Major Improvements (Strongly Recommended)

These improvements would significantly strengthen the paper.

- [ ] **[Improvement 1 Title]**
  - **Location:** [Section/Page]
  - **Current State:** [What's there now]
  - **Suggested Enhancement:** [What to add/change]
  - **Expected Impact:** [How this helps]
  - **Estimated Effort:** [High/Medium/Low]

- [ ] **[Improvement 2 Title]**
  - **Location:** [Section/Page]
  - **Current State:** [Description]
  - **Suggested Enhancement:** [Enhancement]
  - **Expected Impact:** [Impact]
  - **Estimated Effort:** [High/Medium/Low]

---

## 🟢 Minor Suggestions (Nice to Have)

These are polish items that would improve the paper but aren't critical.

- [ ] **[Suggestion 1]** - [Brief description]
- [ ] **[Suggestion 2]** - [Brief description]
- [ ] **[Suggestion 3]** - [Brief description]

---

## 📝 Writing & Presentation

- [ ] **Grammar and Language**
  - [List specific issues with line numbers if possible]

- [ ] **Notation and Terminology**
  - [Inconsistencies or unclear notation]

- [ ] **Figure and Table Improvements**
  - [Specific suggestions for visual elements]

---

## 🔬 Experimental Enhancements

- [ ] **Additional Experiments**
  - [What experiments to add and why]

- [ ] **Baseline Comparisons**
  - [Missing baselines to include]

- [ ] **Ablation Studies**
  - [What ablations would be valuable]

---

## 📚 Related Work & Citations

- [ ] **Missing References**
  - [Important papers to cite]

- [ ] **Related Work Discussion**
  - [Gaps in related work coverage]

---

## 🎯 Priority Roadmap

### Phase 1: Critical Fixes (Before Resubmission)
1. [Critical issue 1]
2. [Critical issue 2]
3. [Critical issue 3]

### Phase 2: Major Improvements (Strengthen Paper)
1. [Major improvement 1]
2. [Major improvement 2]
3. [Major improvement 3]

### Phase 3: Polish (If Time Permits)
1. [Minor suggestion 1]
2. [Minor suggestion 2]
3. [Minor suggestion 3]

---

## 📊 Estimated Impact on Review Score

If all critical issues and major improvements are addressed:
- **Current Overall Score:** X.X/10
- **Potential Score After Improvements:** Y.Y/10
- **Expected Recommendation Change:** [Current] → [Potential]

---

**End of Improvement Plan**

Review Tone Guidelines

Maintain a constructive and balanced tone throughout:

1. Be Specific: Provide concrete examples and line numbers when possible
2. Be Fair: Acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses
3. Be Constructive: Offer actionable suggestions, not just criticism
4. Be Professional: Maintain respectful and objective language
5. Be Encouraging: Recognize good work and potential

Example Usage

# User invokes the skill
/paper-review path/to/paper.pdf

# Or with LaTeX
/paper-review path/to/paper.tex

Output Files

The skill generates two files in the current directory:

1. review-{paper-name}-{timestamp}.md - Full review
2. improvements-{paper-name}-{timestamp}.md - Improvement plan

Notes

• Always read the entire paper before starting the review
• For LaTeX files, handle multi-file projects by following \input and \include commands
• Adjust review depth based on paper length (conference papers vs journal papers)
• Consider venue-specific requirements (e.g., NeurIPS emphasizes reproducibility, CVPR emphasizes experimental results)
• Be aware of common pitfalls in CS papers: overclaiming, insufficient baselines, unclear notation, missing ablations

Common CS Conference Standards

• NeurIPS: Strong emphasis on reproducibility, code submission, theoretical soundness
• CVPR/ICCV/ECCV: Focus on experimental results, visual quality, benchmark performance
• ICML: Balance of theory and experiments, statistical significance
• ICLR: Open review process, reproducibility, code availability
• ACL/EMNLP: Language quality, linguistic analysis, dataset details
• SIGIR/WWW: Real-world applicability, scalability, user studies

Tips for Effective Reviews

1. Read Abstract and Conclusion First: Get the big picture
2. Skim Figures and Tables: Understand the experimental setup
3. Read Introduction: Understand motivation and contributions
4. Deep Dive into Methods: Check technical soundness
5. Analyze Experiments: Verify claims are supported
6. Check Related Work: Ensure proper positioning
7. Review Writing Quality: Note clarity issues
8. Consider Reproducibility: Check for missing details