Review Paper

2. Novelty & Contribution

• Is the contribution clearly stated?
• How does it improve over prior work (asymptotically, concretely, in assumptions)?
• Is the contribution primarily theoretical or does it have practical implications?

3. Security Model

• Is the threat model clearly defined?
• Are there gaps between the model and realistic deployment?
• Are the security definitions appropriate (IND-CPA vs IND-CCA, simulation vs game-based)?

4. Efficiency Analysis

• Are efficiency claims supported by concrete analysis or benchmarks?
• How does efficiency compare to prior work?
• Are the relevant metrics reported (proof size, verification time, prover time, communication)?

5. Literature Positioning

• Are key related works cited?
• Is the comparison to prior work accurate and fair?
• Are there missing references a referee would flag?

6. Presentation Quality

• Is the paper clearly written?
• Is notation consistent throughout?
• Are definitions, theorems, and proofs well-structured?
• Are figures and tables informative?

Output Format

# Review: [Paper Title]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Summary Assessment
**Recommendation:** [Strong Accept / Accept / Borderline / Reject]
[2-3 paragraph summary]

## Strengths
1. [Strength]

## Major Concerns
### MC1: [Title]
- **Dimension:** [Correctness / Novelty / Security / Efficiency / Literature / Presentation]
- **Issue:** [Specific description]
- **Suggestion:** [How to address]

## Minor Concerns
### mc1: [Title]
- **Issue / Suggestion**

## Referee Objections
### RO1: [Question]
**Why it matters:** [Why this could be fatal]
**How to address:** [Suggested response]

## Ratings
| Dimension | Rating (1-5) |
|---|---|
| Technical Correctness | |
| Novelty | |
| Security Model | |
| Efficiency | |
| Literature | |
| Presentation | |

Adapted from pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow (MIT license).