How do I install the Self Review skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add qhjqhj00/self-review in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Self Review safe to use?

SkillMD's automated safety review verdict for this skill is CAUTION. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: PASS, Skill Scanner: PASS. Capability flags: executes scripts, makes network calls. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Self Review?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Self Review free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Self Review?

qhjqhj00 (@qhjqhj00) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Self Review by qhjqhj00 — Agent Skill

Name: Self Review
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: qhjqhj00

File contents

Self-Review

Review an academic paper using a structured review form with multiple reviewer personas.

Input

$ARGUMENTS — Path to PDF file or .tex file

Scripts

Extract text from PDF

python ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/extract_pdf_text.py paper.pdf --output paper_text.txt
python ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/extract_pdf_text.py paper.pdf --format markdown

Tries pymupdf4llm (best) → pymupdf → pypdf. Install: pip install pymupdf4llm pymupdf pypdf

Parse PDF into structured sections

python ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/parse_pdf_sections.py \
  --pdf paper.pdf --output sections.json

Extracts title (via font size), section headings, and section text. Requires: pip install pymupdf Key flags: --format text, --verbose

Workflow

Step 1: Load Paper

If PDF: use extract_pdf_text.py to extract text
If .tex: read the LaTeX source directly

Step 2: Three-Persona Review

Run three independent reviews using different personas (from references/review-form.md):

Harsh but fair reviewer: Expects good experiments that lead to insights
Harsh and critical reviewer: Looking for impactful ideas in the field
Open-minded reviewer: Looking for novel ideas not proposed before

For each persona, generate a review following the NeurIPS review JSON format in references/review-form.md.

Step 3: Reflection Refinement (up to 3 rounds per reviewer)

After each review, apply the reflection prompt: re-evaluate accuracy and soundness, refine if needed. Stop when "I am done".

Step 4: Aggregate

Combine all three reviews
Average numerical scores (round to nearest integer)
Synthesize a meta-review finding consensus
Weight scores using AgentLaboratory weights: Overall (1.0), Contribution (0.4), Presentation (0.2), others (0.1 each)

Step 5: Actionable Report

Output format:

## Review Summary
- **Overall Score**: X/10 (Weighted: Y/10)
- **Decision**: Accept / Reject
- **Confidence**: Z/5

## Strengths (consensus across reviewers)
1. ...
2. ...

## Weaknesses (consensus across reviewers)
1. ...
2. ...

## Questions for Authors
1. ...

## Specific Suggestions for Improvement
1. [Section X, Page Y]: ...
2. [Section Z, Page W]: ...

## Score Breakdown
| Dimension | R1 | R2 | R3 | Avg |
|-----------|----|----|-----|-----|
| Overall | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Contribution | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

References

NeurIPS review form, scoring weights, personas, reflection prompts: ~/.claude/skills/self-review/references/review-form.md
PDF text extraction: ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/extract_pdf_text.py

Missing Sections Check

You MUST verify that all required sections are present: Abstract, Introduction, Methods/Approach, Experiments/Results, Discussion/Conclusion. Reduce scores if any are missing.

Related Skills

Upstream: paper-compilation
Downstream: paper-revision, rebuttal-writing
See also: slide-generation

---name: self-reviewdescription: 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.---# Self-ReviewReview an academic paper using a structured review form with multiple reviewer personas.## Input- `$ARGUMENTS` — Path to PDF file or `.tex` file## Scripts### Extract text from PDF```bashpython ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/extract_pdf_text.py paper.pdf --output paper_text.txtpython ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/extract_pdf_text.py paper.pdf --format markdown```Tries pymupdf4llm (best) → pymupdf → pypdf. Install: `pip install pymupdf4llm pymupdf pypdf`### Parse PDF into structured sections```bashpython ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/parse_pdf_sections.py \ --pdf paper.pdf --output sections.json```Extracts title (via font size), section headings, and section text. Requires: `pip install pymupdf`Key flags: `--format text`, `--verbose`## Workflow### Step 1: Load Paper- If PDF: use `extract_pdf_text.py` to extract text- If `.tex`: read the LaTeX source directly### Step 2: Three-Persona ReviewRun three independent reviews using different personas (from `references/review-form.md`):1. **Harsh but fair reviewer**: Expects good experiments that lead to insights2. **Harsh and critical reviewer**: Looking for impactful ideas in the field3. **Open-minded reviewer**: Looking for novel ideas not proposed beforeFor each persona, generate a review following the NeurIPS review JSON format in `references/review-form.md`.### Step 3: Reflection Refinement (up to 3 rounds per reviewer)After each review, apply the reflection prompt: re-evaluate accuracy and soundness, refine if needed. Stop when "I am done".### Step 4: Aggregate- Combine all three reviews- Average numerical scores (round to nearest integer)- Synthesize a meta-review finding consensus- Weight scores using AgentLaboratory weights: Overall (1.0), Contribution (0.4), Presentation (0.2), others (0.1 each)### Step 5: Actionable ReportOutput format:```## Review Summary- **Overall Score**: X/10 (Weighted: Y/10)- **Decision**: Accept / Reject- **Confidence**: Z/5## Strengths (consensus across reviewers)1. ...2. ...## Weaknesses (consensus across reviewers)1. ...2. ...## Questions for Authors1. ...## Specific Suggestions for Improvement1. [Section X, Page Y]: ...2. [Section Z, Page W]: ...## Score Breakdown| Dimension | R1 | R2 | R3 | Avg ||-----------|----|----|-----|-----|| Overall | ... | ... | ... | ... || Contribution | ... | ... | ... | ... || ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |```## References- NeurIPS review form, scoring weights, personas, reflection prompts: `~/.claude/skills/self-review/references/review-form.md`- PDF text extraction: `~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/extract_pdf_text.py`## Missing Sections CheckYou MUST verify that all required sections are present: Abstract, Introduction, Methods/Approach, Experiments/Results, Discussion/Conclusion. Reduce scores if any are missing.## Related Skills- Upstream: [paper-compilation](../paper-compilation/)- Downstream: [paper-revision](../paper-revision/), [rebuttal-writing](../rebuttal-writing/)- See also: [slide-generation](../slide-generation/)

Frequently asked questions

Self Review