Academic Paper Review Skill

When to Use This Skill

Always load this skill when:

• User provides a paper URL (arXiv, DOI, conference proceedings, journal link)
• User uploads a PDF of a research paper or preprint
• User asks to "review", "analyze", "critique", "assess", or "summarize" a research paper
• User wants to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a study
• User requests a peer-review-style evaluation of academic work
• User asks for help preparing a review for a conference or journal submission

Review Methodology

Phase 1: Paper Comprehension

Thoroughly read and understand the paper before forming any judgments.

Step 1.1: Identify Paper Metadata

Extract and record:

Step 1.2: Deep Reading Pass

Read the paper systematically:

1. Abstract & Introduction — Identify the claimed contributions and motivation
2. Related Work — Note how authors position their work relative to prior art
3. Methodology — Understand the proposed approach, model, or framework in detail
4. Experiments / Results — Examine datasets, baselines, metrics, and reported outcomes
5. Discussion & Limitations — Note any self-identified limitations
6. Conclusion — Compare concluded claims against actual evidence presented

Step 1.3: Key Claims Extraction

List the paper's main claims explicitly:

Claim 1: [Specific claim about contribution or finding]
Evidence: [What evidence supports this claim in the paper]
Strength: [Strong / Moderate / Weak]

Claim 2: [...]
...

Phase 2: Critical Analysis

Step 2.1: Literature Context Search

Use web search to understand the research landscape:

Search queries:
- "[paper topic] state of the art [current year]"
- "[key method name] comparison benchmark"
- "[authors] previous work [topic]"
- "[specific technique] limitations criticism"
- "survey [research area] recent advances"

Use web_fetch on key related papers or surveys to understand where this work fits.

Step 2.2: Methodology Assessment

Evaluate the methodology using the following framework:

Step 2.3: Contribution Significance Assessment

Evaluate the significance level:

Step 2.4: Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis

For each strength or weakness, provide:

• What: Specific observation
• Where: Section/figure/table reference
• Why it matters: Impact on the paper's claims or utility

Phase 3: Review Synthesis

Step 3.1: Assemble the Structured Review

Produce the final review using the template below.

Review Output Template

# Paper Review: [Paper Title]

## Paper Metadata
- **Authors**: [Author list]
- **Venue**: [Publication venue or preprint server]
- **Year**: [Year]
- **Domain**: [Research field]
- **Paper Type**: [Empirical / Theoretical / Survey / Systems / Position]

## Executive Summary

[2-3 paragraph summary of the paper's core contribution, approach, and main findings.
State your overall assessment upfront: what the paper does well, where it falls short,
and whether the contribution is sufficient for the claimed venue/impact level.]

## Summary of Contributions

1. [First claimed contribution — one sentence]
2. [Second claimed contribution — one sentence]
3. [Additional contributions if any]

## Strengths

### S1: [Concise strength title]
[Detailed explanation with specific references to sections, figures, or tables in the paper.
Explain WHY this is a strength and its significance.]

### S2: [Concise strength title]
[...]

### S3: [Concise strength title]
[...]

## Weaknesses

### W1: [Concise weakness title]
[Detailed explanation with specific references. Explain the impact of this weakness on
the paper's claims. Suggest how it could be addressed.]

### W2: [Concise weakness title]
[...]

### W3: [Concise weakness title]
[...]

## Methodology Assessment

| Criterion | Rating (1-5) | Assessment |
|-----------|:---:|------------|
| Soundness | X | [Brief justification] |
| Novelty | X | [Brief justification] |
| Reproducibility | X | [Brief justification] |
| Experimental Design | X | [Brief justification] |
| Statistical Rigor | X | [Brief justification] |
| Scalability | X | [Brief justification] |

## Questions for the Authors

1. [Specific question that would clarify a concern or ambiguity]
2. [Question about methodology choices or alternative approaches]
3. [Question about generalizability or practical applicability]

## Minor Issues

- [Typos, formatting issues, unclear figures, notation inconsistencies]
- [Missing references that should be cited]
- [Suggestions for improved clarity]

## Literature Positioning

[How does this work relate to the current state of the art?
Are key related works cited? Are comparisons fair and comprehensive?
What important related work is missing?]

## Recommendations

**Overall Assessment**: [Accept / Weak Accept / Borderline / Weak Reject / Reject]

**Confidence**: [High / Medium / Low] — [Justification for confidence level]

**Contribution Level**: [Landmark / Significant / Moderate / Marginal / Below threshold]

### Actionable Suggestions for Improvement
1. [Specific, constructive suggestion]
2. [Specific, constructive suggestion]
3. [Specific, constructive suggestion]

Review Principles

Constructive Criticism

• Always suggest how to fix it — Don't just point out problems; propose solutions
• Give credit where due — Acknowledge genuine contributions even in flawed papers
• Be specific — Reference exact sections, equations, figures, and tables
• Separate minor from major — Distinguish fatal flaws from fixable issues

Objectivity Standards

• ❌ "This paper is poorly written" (vague, unhelpful)
• ✅ "Section 3.2 introduces notation X without formal definition, making the proof in Theorem 1 difficult to follow. Consider adding a notation table after the problem formulation." (specific, actionable)

Ethical Review Practices

• Do NOT dismiss work based on author reputation or affiliation
• Evaluate the work on its own merits
• Flag potential ethical concerns (bias in datasets, dual-use implications) constructively
• Maintain confidentiality of unpublished work

Adaptation by Paper Type

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• ❌ Reviewing the paper you wish was written instead of the paper that was submitted
• ❌ Demanding additional experiments that are unreasonable in scope
• ❌ Penalizing the paper for not solving a different problem
• ❌ Being overly influenced by writing quality versus technical contribution
• ❌ Treating absence of comparison to your own work as a weakness
• ❌ Providing only a summary without critical analysis

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing the review, verify:

• Paper was read completely (not just abstract and introduction)
• All major claims are identified and evaluated against evidence
• At least 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses are provided with specific references
• The methodology assessment table is complete with ratings and justifications
• Questions for authors target genuine ambiguities, not rhetorical critiques
• Literature search was conducted to contextualize the contribution
• Recommendations are actionable and constructive
• The overall assessment is consistent with the identified strengths and weaknesses
• The review tone is professional and respectful
• Minor issues are separated from major concerns

Output Format

• Output the complete review in Markdown format
• Save the review to /mnt/user-data/outputs/review-{paper-topic}.md when working in sandbox
• Present the review to the user using the present_files tool

Notes

• This skill complements the deep-research skill — load both when the user wants the paper reviewed in the context of the broader field
• For papers behind paywalls, work with whatever content is accessible (abstract, publicly available versions, preprint mirrors)
• Adapt the review depth to the user's needs: a brief assessment for quick triage versus a full review for submission preparation
• When reviewing multiple papers comparatively, maintain consistent criteria across all reviews
• Always disclose limitations of your review (e.g., "I could not verify the proofs in Appendix B in detail")