Give detailed feedback on scientific papers against established writing guidelines. Use when reviewing a paper, manuscript, or LaTeX draft, or when the user asks for paper feedback, writing review, or scientific writing critique.
Provide detailed feedback on scientific papers by checking the manuscript against two guideline sources. Fetch and read both before reviewing.
GitHub guidelines (LaTeX, style, structure, content)
Fetch the raw markdown to save tokens:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jerabaul29/guidelines_writing_papers/main/README.mdStanford technical writing tips (structure, mechanics, grammar)
Fetch the page content (e.g. with a web fetch tool):
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/widom/paper-writing.htmlUse these as the authority for what counts as a violation. Cite guideline identifiers where they exist (e.g. F:S2, F:L3) or the section/rule from Stanford.
Unless the user asks for a specific feedback format, split feedback into two sections:
\citep vs \citet, punctuation around equations, consistency, indentation)For every place a guideline is violated, report:
| Field | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Location | Line number(s) preferred; otherwise section + short position description |
| Excerpt | Short verbatim quote of the offending text (1–3 sentences max) |
| Guideline | Which rule is violated (e.g. "F:S2 – short sentences", "Stanford: avoid nonreferential 'this'") |
| Suggestion | Concrete correction or rewrite |
Example:
- **Location:** Line 42
- **Excerpt:** "Our method is very effective and we have shown that it can be applied in a variety of different scenarios."
- **Guideline:** F:S0 (avoid strong/vague adjectives like "very"); F:S2 (one idea per sentence).
- **Suggestion:** "Our method is effective in the settings we tested. We show that it applies to scenarios X and Y."