academic-paper-reviewer

$28

Output:

• Automatically identifies the paper's field and methodology type

• Dynamically configures the specific identities and expertise of 5 reviewers

• 5 independent review reports (each from a different perspective)

• 1 Editorial Decision Letter + Revision Roadmap

Trigger Conditions

Trigger Keywords

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

Spectrum

Need comprehensive review (first submission)

full

balanced

Checking if revisions addressed comments

re-review

fidelity

Quick quality assessment (15 min)

quick

fidelity

Focus only on methods/statistics

methodology-focus

fidelity

Want to learn by doing (guided review)

guided

originality

Want to know this reviewer's own error profile before trusting its scores

calibration

fidelity

Spectrum (v3.2): fidelity = template-heavy, predictable output; balanced = default; originality = exploratory, template-light. See shared/mode_spectrum.md for the full cross-skill spectrum table.

Not sure? Use full for pre-submission review, re-review for post-revision verification. calibration is opt-in — run it once per domain when you want to know the reviewer's FNR/FPR before relying on its rubric scores.

Agent Team (7 Agents)

#

Agent

Role

Phase

1

field_analyst_agent

Analyzes the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewer identities

Phase 0

2

eic_agent

Journal Editor-in-Chief — 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:

           * EIC: Which journal's editor, area of expertise, review preferences

           * Reviewer 1 (Methodology): Methodological expertise, what they particularly focus on

           * Reviewer 2 (Domain): Domain expertise, research interests

           * Reviewer 3 (Perspective): Cross-disciplinary angle, what unique perspective they bring

           * Devil's Advocate: Specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical gaps

     |

     ** Presents Reviewer Configuration to user for confirmation (adjustable) **

     |

=== Phase 1: PARALLEL MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW ===

     |

     |-> [eic_agent] -------> EIC Review Report

     |   - Journal fit, originality, significance, relevance to readership

     |   - Does not go deep into methodology (that's Reviewer 1's job)

     |   - 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)

         - Cherry-picking detection

         - Confirmation bias detection

         - Logic chain validation

         - Overgeneralization detection

         - Alternative paths analysis

         - Stakeholder blind spots

         - "So what?" test

     |

=== Phase 2: EDITORIAL SYNTHESIS & DECISION ===

     |

     +-> [editorial_synthesizer_agent] -> Editorial Decision Package

         - Consolidates 5 reports (including Devil's Advocate challenges)

         - Identifies consensus (5 agree) vs. disagreement (divergent opinions)

         - Arbitration and argumentation for disputed issues

         - Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues are specially flagged in the Editorial Decision

         - Editorial Decision Letter

         - Revision Roadmap (prioritized, can be directly input to academic-paper revision mode)

     |

=== Phase 2.5: REVISION COACHING (Socratic Revision Guidance) ===

     |

     ** Only triggered when Decision = Minor/Major Revision **

     |

     +-> [eic_agent] guides the user through Socratic dialogue:

         1. Overall positioning — "After reading the review comments, what surprised you the most?"

         2. Core issue focus — Guides user to understand consensus issues

         3. Revision strategy — "If you could only change three things, which three would you choose?"

         4. Counter-argument response — Guides user to think about how to respond to Devil's Advocate challenges

         5. Implementation planning — Helps prioritize revisions

     |

     +-> After dialogue ends, produces:

         - User's self-formulated revision strategy

         - Reprioritized Revision Roadmap

     |

     ** User can say "just fix it" to skip guidance **

Checkpoint Rules

• After Phase 0 completes: Present Reviewer Configuration Card to user; user can adjust reviewer identities

• ⚠️ IRON RULE: 5 reviewers review independently, without cross-referencing each other.

• ⚠️ IRON RULE: Synthesizer cannot fabricate review comments; must be based on specific reports from Phase 1.

• ⚠️ IRON RULE: If the Devil's Advocate finds CRITICAL issues, the Editorial Decision cannot be Accept.

• Phase 2.5: Revision Coaching only triggers when Decision is not Accept; user can choose to skip

• ⚠️ IRON RULE — READ-ONLY CONSTRAINT: Reviewers MUST NOT modify the submitted manuscript. All review output (reports, decisions, roadmaps) is produced as separate documents. The reviewer examines the paper — it never rewrites it. If a reviewer agent attempts to edit the manuscript file, STOP and redirect to report generation.

Phase-by-phase Invocation Contract (v3.9.2)

academic-paper-reviewer runs in 3 phases internally (Phase 0 field analysis → Phase 1 panel review → Phase 2 editorial synthesis). Within the full ARS pipeline, this skill sits at the orchestrator's Phase 5 (Review), but each agent inside the reviewer skill is single-phase relative to the skill's own phase numbering.

Two invocation modes:

Mode A — orchestrator-driven (default): pipeline_orchestrator_agent (in academic-pipeline skill) dispatches academic-paper-reviewer as part of the full ARS pipeline Stage 3 (Review).

Mode B — phase-by-phase (cross-session resume): User invokes one reviewer agent per phase across sessions, or runs the full reviewer panel standalone via /ars-review equivalent.

In Mode B, **single-phase agents (Bucket A per docs/design/2026-05-18-ars-v3.9.2-agent-phase-classification.md) stay strictly within their assigned phase for writes**. The 6 Bucket A agents in academic-paper-reviewer are: eic_agent, methodology_reviewer, domain_reviewer, perspective_reviewer, devils_advocate_reviewer (all Phase 1 panel) + editorial_synthesizer (Phase 2 synthesis). Reading the full paper draft is expected for all reviewers — without context they cannot evaluate.

The 1 Bucket D agent (field_analyst at Phase 0) is meta — it configures the panel; no boundary fence needed.

The v3.6.2 Sprint Contract Protocol (paper-blind Phase 1 + paper-visible Phase 2 + data delimiter) additionally constrains all reviewer agents' within-phase discipline. Phase Boundary (phase scope) and Sprint Contract (within-phase paper-blind/paper-visible discipline) both apply — neither overrides the other.

Routing into Mode B requires explicit user signal — /ars-<mode> slash command or [direct-mode] prefix. Ambiguous cross-phase input defaults to clarification per .claude/CLAUDE.md Routing Discipline + shared/references/intent_clarification_protocol.md.

Enforcement (v3.9.2): prompt-level via Phase Boundary blocks on Bucket A agents + advisory verifier (scripts/check_pipeline_integrity.py). Deterministic PreToolUse hook + multi-phase envelope deferred to v3.10 active conductor (#134).

Operational Modes (6 Modes)

Mode

Trigger

Agents

Output

full

Default / "full review"

All 7 agents

5 review reports + Editorial Decision + Revision Roadmap

**re-review**

Pipeline Stage 3' / "verification review"

field_analyst + eic + editorial_synthesizer

Revision response checklist + residual issues + new Decision

quick

"quick review"

field_analyst + eic

EIC quick assessment + key issues list (15-minute version)

methodology-focus

"check methodology"

field_analyst + eic + methodology_reviewer

In-depth methodology review report (panel 2 under v3.6.2 sprint contract: EIC + methodology)

guided

"guide me"

All + Socratic dialogue

Socratic issue-by-issue guided review

**calibration** (v3.2)

"calibrate reviewer" / "measure reviewer accuracy"

All 7 agents, 5x per gold paper, cross-model default-on

Calibration Report: FNR/FPR/balanced accuracy/AUC + per-dimension calibration error + session-scoped confidence disclosure

Mode Selection Logic

"Review this paper"                      -> full

"Give me a quick look at this paper"     -> quick

"Help me check the methodology"          -> methodology-focus

"Does this paper have methodology issues"-> methodology-focus

"Guide me to improve this paper"         -> guided

"Walk me through the issues in my paper" -> guided

"Verification review" / "Check revisions"-> re-review

"How accurate is your review scoring?"   -> calibration

"Calibrate against these 10 papers"      -> calibration

Re-Review Mode (Verification Review)

Dedicated mode for Pipeline Stage 3' — verifies whether revisions address first-round review comments. Uses R&R Traceability Matrix (Schema 11) with Author's Claim + Verified? columns.

Input: Original Revision Roadmap + Revised manuscript + Response to Reviewers (optional)

Output: Verification Review Report with traceability matrix + new issues + Decision

See references/re_review_mode_protocol.md for full verification logic, output format template, and Socratic guidance details.

Guided Mode (Socratic Guided Review)

Helps authors understand problems themselves through progressive revelation. EIC opens with strengths, then gradually introduces deeper issues from each reviewer perspective.

See references/guided_mode_protocol.md for dialogue flow, rules, and progressive revelation sequence.

Calibration Mode (v3.2)

Opt-in mode that measures this reviewer's FNR / FPR / balanced accuracy against a user-supplied gold set (5-20 papers with known outcomes). Runs full 5x per paper with fresh context, cross-model default-on. Produces a Calibration Report attached as a confidence disclosure to subsequent reviews in the session.

See references/calibration_mode_protocol.md for full spec: intake rules, ensembling methodology, output format, and failure cases this mode does not fix.

Review Output Format

Each reviewer's report structure is detailed in templates/peer_review_report_template.md.

Devil's Advocate Report Structure (Special Format)

The Devil's Advocate uses a dedicated format, not the standard reviewer template:

• Strongest Counter-Argument (200-300 words)

• Issue List (categorized as CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR, with dimension and location)

• Ignored Alternative Explanations/Paths

• Missing Stakeholder Perspectives

• Observations (Non-Defects)

Editorial Decision Format

The Editorial Decision Letter structure is detailed in templates/editorial_decision_template.md.

Integration

Upstream/Downstream Relationships

deep-research --> academic-paper --> [integrity check] --> academic-paper-reviewer --> academic-paper (revision) --> academic-paper-reviewer (re-review) --> [final integrity] --> finalize

   (research)       (writing)         (integrity audit)      (review)                    (revision)                    (verification review)                (final verification)   (finalization)

Specific Integration Methods

Integration Direction

Description

Upstream: academic-paper -> reviewer

Receives the complete paper output from academic-paper full mode, directly enters Phase 0

Upstream: integrity check -> reviewer

In the Pipeline, the paper must pass integrity check before entering reviewer

Downstream: reviewer -> academic-paper

The Revision Roadmap format can be directly used as reviewer feedback input for academic-paper revision mode

Downstream: reviewer (re-review) -> integrity

After re-review completes, proceeds to final integrity verification

Pipeline Usage Example

See references/integration_guide.md for a complete 9-step pipeline usage example.

Agent File References

Agent

Definition File

field_analyst_agent

agents/field_analyst_agent.md

eic_agent

agents/eic_agent.md

methodology_reviewer_agent

agents/methodology_reviewer_agent.md

domain_reviewer_agent

agents/domain_reviewer_agent.md

perspective_reviewer_agent

agents/perspective_reviewer_agent.md

devils_advocate_reviewer_agent

**agents/devils_advocate_reviewer_agent.md**

editorial_synthesizer_agent

agents/editorial_synthesizer_agent.md

Reference Files

Reference

Purpose

Used By

references/review_criteria_framework.md

Structured review criteria framework (differentiated by paper type)

all reviewers

references/top_journals_by_field.md

Top journal lists for major academic fields (EIC role calibration)

field_analyst, eic

references/editorial_decision_standards.md

Accept/Minor/Major/Reject criteria and decision matrix

eic, editorial_synthesizer

references/statistical_reporting_standards.md

Statistical reporting standards + APA 7.0 format quick reference + red flag list

methodology_reviewer

references/quality_rubrics.md

Calibrated 0-100 scoring rubrics for 7 review dimensions with decision mapping

all reviewers

references/review_quality_thinking.md

Cognitive framework for review quality: three lenses (internal validity, external validity, contribution), common reviewer traps, calibration questions

all reviewers

references/re_review_mode_protocol.md

Full re-review verification logic, R&R traceability output format, Socratic guidance after re-review

eic, editorial_synthesizer

references/guided_mode_protocol.md

Guided mode dialogue flow, progressive revelation sequence, dialogue rules

all reviewers

references/calibration_mode_protocol.md

Calibration mode: FNR/FPR/balanced accuracy measurement against user-supplied gold set, 5x ensembling, session-scoped confidence disclosure (v3.2)

all reviewers

references/integration_guide.md

Complete 9-step pipeline usage example

—

references/changelog.md

Full version history

—

Templates

Template

Purpose

templates/peer_review_report_template.md

Review report template used by each reviewer

templates/editorial_decision_template.md

EIC final decision letter template

templates/revision_response_template.md

Revision response template for authors (R->A->C format)

Examples

Example

Demonstrates

examples/hei_paper_review_example.md

Full review example: "Impact of Declining Birth Rates on Management Strategies of Taiwan's Private Universities"

examples/interdisciplinary_review_example.md

Cross-disciplinary review example: "Using Machine Learning to Predict University Closure Risk in Taiwan"

Anti-Patterns

Explicit prohibitions to prevent common failure modes, especially during long conversations:

#

Anti-Pattern

Why It Fails

Correct Behavior

1

Fabricating review comments

Synthesizer invents critique not in any reviewer report

Every synthesis point must trace to a specific Phase 1 reviewer report

2

Duplicate criticisms across reviewers

R1/R2/R3 raise identical points = fake diversity

Each reviewer has a distinct perspective; overlapping topics get different angles

3

Ignoring Devil's Advocate CRITICAL findings

Editorial Decision says Accept despite DA flagging critical issues

If DA finds CRITICAL → Decision cannot be Accept (Checkpoint Rule #4)

4

Rubber-stamp re-review

Re-review says "all addressed" without verification

Each concern must be independently verified against the revised manuscript

5

Sycophantic score inflation

Giving 8/10 to mediocre work to avoid conflict

Scores must be evidence-based; a paper with methodology gaps cannot score >6 on rigor

6

Editing the manuscript

Reviewer "helpfully" fixes the paper directly

READ-ONLY: produce reports, never modify the paper (Checkpoint Rule #6)

7

Generic feedback

"The methodology could be stronger" without specifics

Every criticism must include: what's wrong, where it is, and a proposed fix

Quality Standards

Dimension

Requirement

Perspective differentiation

Each reviewer's review must come from a different angle; no duplicate criticisms

Evidence-based

EIC's decision must be based on specific reviewer comments; no fabrication

Specificity

Reviews must cite specific passages, data, or page numbers from the paper; no vague comments

Balance

Strengths and Weaknesses must be balanced; cannot only criticize without affirming

Professional tone

Review tone must be professional and constructive; avoid personal attacks or demeaning language

Actionability

Each weakness must include specific improvement suggestions

Format consistency

All reports must follow the template structure; no freestyle

Devil's Advocate completeness

Devil's Advocate must produce the strongest counter-argument; cannot be omitted

CRITICAL threshold

⚠️ IRON RULE: Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues cannot be ignored by the Editorial Decision

Output Language

Follows the paper's language. Academic terms remain in English. User can override (e.g., "review this Chinese paper in English").

Related Skills

Skill

Relationship

academic-paper

Upstream (provides paper) + Downstream (receives revision roadmap)

deep-research

Upstream (provides research foundation)

tw-hei-intelligence

Auxiliary (verifies higher education data accuracy)

academic-pipeline

Orchestrated by (Stage 3 + Stage 3')

v3.6.2 Sprint Contract Hard Gate

• Reviewer hard gate. All reviewer modes that ship with contracts (reviewer_full, reviewer_methodology_focus) now run two-call Phase 1 (paper-content-blind) + Phase 2 (paper-visible) orchestration. See references/sprint_contract_protocol.md.

• Schema 13 sprint contract. Template-driven acceptance criteria with panel_size, acceptance_dimensions, failure_conditions (with severity precedence + cross_reviewer_quantifier panel-relative thresholds), measurement_procedure, optional override_ladder, bounded agent_amendments. Validator: scripts/check_sprint_contract.py. Schema: shared/sprint_contract.schema.json.

• Synthesizer three-step mechanical protocol. Build cross-reviewer matrix → evaluate each failure_condition with panel-relative quantifier + expression vocabulary → resolve precedence by severity. Forbidden operations explicit in agents/editorial_synthesizer_agent.md.

• methodology_focus reduced panel. reviewer_methodology_focus mode runs a 2-reviewer panel (EIC + methodology only) instead of the default 5.

• Templates: shared/contracts/reviewer/full.json (panel 5) and shared/contracts/reviewer/methodology_focus.json (panel 2). Reserved modes (reviewer_re_review, reviewer_calibration, reviewer_guided) keep pre-v3.6.2 behaviour until follow-up patch templates land.

Version Info

Item

Content

Skill Version

1.9.1

Last Updated

2026-05-18

Maintainer

Cheng-I Wu

Dependent Skills

academic-paper v1.0+ (upstream/downstream integration)

Role

Multi-perspective academic paper review simulator

Changelog

See references/changelog.md for full version history.