This skill should be used when the user asks to "review paper quality", "check paper completeness", "validate paper structure", "self-review before submission", or mentions systematic paper quality checking. Provides comprehensive quality assurance checklist for academic papers.
A systematic paper quality checking tool that helps researchers conduct comprehensive self-review before submission.
Core Features
1. Structure Review
Check whether all sections of the paper are complete and conform to academic standards:
Does the Abstract include problem, method, results, and contributions?
Does the Introduction clearly articulate research motivation and background?
Is the Method detailed enough to be reproducible?
Do the Results sufficiently support the conclusions?
Does the Discussion address limitations and future work?
2. Logic Consistency Check
Verify the logical coherence of the paper:
Do research questions match the methodology?
Does the experimental design support the research hypotheses?
Are result interpretations reasonable?
Are conclusions supported by evidence?
2a. Overclaiming Audit
Every adjective in the title must be experimentally justified.
相關技能
BANNED title words unless justified across ≥3 model families AND ≥5 datasets: "universal", "general", "always", "any", "all".
Every factual abstract sentence must map to a specific table or figure.
No claim may have broader scope than the experimental design supports.
Category-level claims require ≥2 datasets per category.
2b. Limitation-Claim Consistency
For every limitation acknowledged in the paper:
Does it affect any stated claim?
If yes: is the claim reduced in scope or addressed by an additional experiment?
If neither: the claim must be weakened or removed.
Acknowledging a limitation without adjusting claims is a reviewer red flag.
2c. Motivation-Measurement Alignment
If the paper motivates with efficiency claims, verify that wall-clock time, GPU memory, and throughput are measured — not just parameter counts.
3. Citation Completeness
Check the completeness and accuracy of citations:
Are all citations present in the references?
Is the reference format consistent?
Are key related works cited?
Do citations accurately reflect the original content?
4. Figure/Table Quality
Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of figures and tables:
Do all figures/tables have clear titles and captions?
Do figures/tables support the text narrative?
Are figures/tables clear and readable?
Do formats comply with journal/conference requirements?
5. Writing Clarity
Check writing clarity and readability:
Is the language concise and clear?
Is technical terminology used appropriately?
Are sentence structures clear?
Is paragraph organization logical?
Quality Checklist
Use this checklist for systematic paper self-review:
Paper Quality Checklist:
- [ ] Abstract includes problem, method, results, contributions
- [ ] Introduction clearly states research motivation
- [ ] Method is reproducible
- [ ] Results support conclusions
- [ ] Discussion addresses limitations
- [ ] All figures/tables have captions
- [ ] Citations are complete and accurate
When to Use
Use this skill in the following scenarios:
Pre-submission check - Final review before submitting to a journal or conference
After first draft - Systematic review after completing the first draft
Before advisor review - Self-check before requesting advisor feedback to improve quality
Post-revision verification - After revising based on reviewer comments, verify all issues are addressed
Collaborator review - Quality check before sending to collaborators
Review Process
Follow these steps for systematic paper review:
Step 1: Structure Review
Start with the overall structure, checking if all sections are complete and logically coherent.
Step 2: Content Review
Dive into each section, checking content accuracy and completeness.
Step 3: Citation Check
Verify the completeness and accuracy of all citations.
Step 4: Figure/Table Review
Check the quality and captions of all figures and tables.
Step 5: Writing Quality
Review language expression and writing clarity.
Step 6: Final Checklist
Use the quality checklist for final verification.
Best Practices
Review Timing
Spaced review - Wait 1-2 days after completing the draft before reviewing to maintain objectivity
Multiple rounds - Conduct multiple review rounds, focusing on different aspects each time
Print review - Print a hard copy for review; issues are easier to spot on paper
Review Techniques
Reverse reading - Read from conclusion backwards to check logical coherence
Read aloud - Reading the paper aloud helps identify language issues
Reviewer perspective - Assume you are a reviewer and read critically
Common Issues
Abstract too brief or too verbose
Introduction lacks clear research question statement
Method lacks sufficient detail for reproduction
Results lack statistical significance tests
Discussion doesn't address research limitations
Figures/tables lack clear titles and captions
Inconsistent citation formatting
Integration with Other Systems
Pre-Submission Pipeline
manuscript-production (Complete paper draft)
|
paper-self-review (Systematic quality check) <-- THIS SKILL
|
├── ready with minor edits → post-acceptance
└── needs revision → iterate with manuscript-production
Data Flow
Depends on: manuscript-production (completed paper draft in paper/ directory)
Also requires: claim-evidence-bridge output (claim-evidence-map.md) for claim-conclusion audit
Also uses: results-analysis output (analysis-report.md, stats-appendix.md) for verifying claims against evidence
Feeds into: post-acceptance (if ready), or revision loop back to manuscript-production
Hook activation: Keyword trigger in skill-forced-eval.js — "self-review", "review paper", "check paper quality"
No dedicated command: Triggered manually or as part of the manuscript production workflow
Upstream Input Requirements
Input
Source
Required
Paper draft (paper/main.tex or equivalent)
manuscript-production
Yes
claim-evidence-map.md
claim-evidence-bridge
Required for Claim-Conclusion Audit
analysis-report.md
results-analysis
Recommended for evidence verification
stats-appendix.md
results-analysis
Recommended for statistical claim checking
If claim-evidence-map.md is missing, the Claim-Conclusion Audit section of the checklist cannot be completed. State: "claim-evidence-map.md not found. Claim-Conclusion Audit will be skipped. Run /map-claims to enable this check."
Reference Files
Load only what is needed:
references/SECTION-CHECKLIST.md - section-by-section review questions and claim-conclusion audit
references/FINAL-VERDICT.md - how to summarize submission readiness and blocking issues
examples/example-self-review.md - example review output