domains / research / academic-paper-review / academic-paper-reviewer

academic-paper-reviewer

Skill card

combined

The two copies describe the same multi-perspective academic paper review workflow but disagree on the reviewer panel composition and include materially different operational content. The Imbad0202 copy (v1.11.1) uses a Journal-Fit Reviewer plus 3 peer reviewers plus a Devil's Advocate, adds a calibration mode, and contains a detailed routing/escape-hatch protocol. The brycewang-stanford copy (v1.4) uses an Editor-in-Chief plus 3 peer reviewers plus a Devil's Advocate, omits calibration, and provides a Quick Start, trigger/non-trigger table, and a 7-agent orchestration diagram. Crowning one would hide the alternative panel structure and the distinct routing or quick-start guidance.

Repositories

Other copies

Combined skill

---
name: academic-paper-reviewer
description: "Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Runs a 5-seat, role-separated review panel with field-specific expertise and a Devil's Advocate. Supports full review, re-review, quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes."
---

# Academic Paper Reviewer

Simulates a complete international journal peer review process: automatically identifies the paper's field, dynamically configures 4 card-backed reviewer identities, and adds a fixed Devil's Advocate as the fifth execution seat. A separate editorial synthesizer produces the structured Editorial Decision and Revision Roadmap.

## Quick Start

```
Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]
```

Output:
1. Automatically identifies the paper's field and methodology type
2. Dynamically configures the specific identities and expertise of 5 reviewers
3. 5 independent review reports (each from a different perspective)
4. 1 Editorial Decision Letter + Revision Roadmap

## Trigger Conditions

**English**: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy

### Non-Trigger Scenarios

| Scenario | Skill to Use |
|----------|-------------|
| Need to write a paper (not review) | `academic-paper` |
| Need in-depth investigation of a research topic | `deep-research` |
| Need to revise a paper (already have review comments) | `academic-paper` (revision mode) |

### Quick Mode Selection Guide

| Your Situation | Recommended Mode |
|----------------|-----------------|
| Need comprehensive review (first submission) | full |
| Checking if revisions addressed comments | re-review |
| Quick quality assessment (15 min) | quick |
| Focus only on methods/statistics | methodology-focus |
| Want to learn by doing (guided review) | guided |
| Measure reviewer accuracy | calibration |

## Agent Team (7 Agents)

| # | Agent | Role | Phase |
|---|-------|------|-------|
| 1 | `field_analyst_agent` | Analyzes the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewer identities | Phase 0 |
| 2 | `journal_fit_reviewer_agent` | Journal-Fit Reviewer — journal fit, originality, overall quality | Phase 1 |
| 3 | `methodology_reviewer_agent` | Peer Reviewer 1 — research design, statistical validity, reproducibility | Phase 1 |
| 4 | `domain_reviewer_agent` | Peer Reviewer 2 — literature coverage, theoretical framework, domain contribution | Phase 1 |
| 5 | `perspective_reviewer_agent` | Peer Reviewer 3 — cross-disciplinary connections, practical impact, challenging fundamental assumptions | Phase 1 |
| 6 | `devils_advocate_reviewer_agent` | Devil's Advocate — core argument challenges, logical fallacy detection, strongest counter-arguments | Phase 1 |
| 7 | `editorial_synthesizer_agent` | Synthesizes all reviews, identifies consensus and disagreements, makes editorial decision | Phase 2 |

## Orchestration Workflow (3 Phases)

```
User: "Review this paper"
     |
=== Phase 0: FIELD ANALYSIS & PERSONA CONFIGURATION ===
     |
     +-> [field_analyst_agent] -> Reviewer Configuration Card (x5)
         - Reads the complete paper
         - Identifies: primary discipline, secondary discipline, research paradigm, methodology type, target journal tier, paper maturity
         - Dynamically generates specific identities for 5 reviewers
     |
     ** Presents Reviewer Configuration to user for confirmation (adjustable) **
     |
=== Phase 1: PARALLEL MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW ===
     |
     |-> [journal_fit_reviewer_agent] -> Journal-Fit Review Report
     |   - Journal fit, originality, significance, relevance to readership
     |   - Sets the review tone
     |
     |-> [methodology_reviewer_agent] -> Methodology Review Report
     |   - Research design rigor, sampling strategy, data collection
     |   - Analysis method selection, statistical validity, effect sizes
     |   - Reproducibility, data transparency
     |
     |-> [domain_reviewer_agent] -> Domain Review Report
     |   - Literature review completeness, theoretical framework appropriateness
     |   - Academic argument accuracy, incremental contribution to the field
     |   - Missing key references
     |
     |-> [perspective_reviewer_agent] -> Perspective Review Report
     |   - Cross-disciplinary connections and borrowing opportunities
     |   - Practical applications and policy implications
     |   - Broader social or ethical implications
     |
     +-> [devils_advocate_reviewer_agent] -> Devil's Advocate Report
         - Core argument challenges (strongest counter-arguments)
         - Logical fallacy detection
     |
=== Phase 2: EDITORIAL SYNTHESIS ===
     |
     +-> [editorial_synthesizer_agent] -> Editorial Decision + Revision Roadmap
```

## Routing Discipline

**Step 0 — Escape hatch check (before any classification):** If the user's first message begins with `[direct-mode]` (case-insensitive byte-0 token, optionally preceded by whitespace/newlines that are stripped on parse), record this fact, strip the prefix and surrounding whitespace from the message, and skip directly to **Step 1 explicit-intent handling** on the stripped content. The literal `[direct-mode]` is NOT passed through to the dispatched agent. If the stripped message itself has no clear skill named, Step 1 falls through to Step 3 clarification. When the token is honored and the named agent or skill needs inputs the message does not supply, read that agent's or skill's file and ask for what it requires, in its terms. A `[direct-mode]` token after any other non-whitespace character is not the escape hatch, even when the message asks to skip questions: classify the message through Steps 1-3 as if the token were absent, and do not forward the token. Without the byte-0 token, naming an agent is not explicit intent: such a message goes through Steps 1-3 like any other, so cross-phase materials still get Step 2 clarification.

Otherwise, classify the user's input:

1. **Explicit clear intent** — user invokes a specific skill via `/ars-*` slash command, or uses an unambiguous trigger keyword that maps to a single skill (e.g., "lit-review this", "review my paper", "draft an abstract"):
   → Route directly; no clarification, no orchestrator detour.
   → The request stays explicit when the mode's usual input is absent or a word in it has other everyday senses. A revision request with no reviewer comments is revision mode's "feel certain sections need improvement" case, and "revisar artículo" is the reviewer's trigger. Route to that mode and let the mode handle what is missing; do not reopen the choice of workflow.

2. **Cross-phase materials detected** — user provides artifacts spanning ≥ 2 pipeline phases without naming a specific skill (e.g., pre-written abstract + pre-collected literature; full draft + reviewer comments + bibliography):
   → **Clarify**. Do NOT auto-route to a single-phase agent. List candidate workflows as a-d options in markdown body (NOT via AskUserQuestion tool).
   → Reason: clarification is the safest action when materials don't unambiguously identify intent.

3. **Ambiguous intent, no materials** — user provides no artifacts and no clear request:
   → Clarify per the intent clarification protocol.

**Screening boundary (sr-screener):** a request to screen records the user already has (database exports, pasted abstracts, full-text PDFs) against a review's eligibility criteria, or to build a screening protocol, pilot the screening, adjudicate screening conflicts, audit exclusions, or report the selection counts, routes to `sr-screener`. A request to write a literature review, or to run a systematic review, meta-analysis, or PRISMA report, does not route to `sr-screener`. Screening starts only when the user asks for it: `deep-research` `systematic-review` mode may mention `sr-screener`, but never hands over to it automatically.

**Anti-pattern:** Receiving ambiguous cross-phase materials and silently auto-routing to a single-phase agent based on which phase the materials "look closest to." This bypasses orchestrator-level reconciliation.

## Conflicts

- **Imbad0202/academic-research-skills** uses a **Journal-Fit Reviewer** as the first seat; **brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills** uses an **Editor-in-Chief** as the first seat.
- **Imbad0202/academic-research-skills** includes a **calibration mode** and a **routing/escape-hatch protocol**; **brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills** omits both and instead includes a **Quick Start** and **trigger/non-trigger table**.