SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsreviewer-simulation-skill

reviewer-simulation-skill

Writing & research

View repository

Updated 10-16 00:02

About this skill

Purpose

This Skill simulates peer review of academic papers, producing a structured bilingual review report. It assesses the paper across five dimensions (Novelty, Methodology, Writing Quality, Presentation, Significance) with 1-10 scoring, identifies major and minor concerns with actionable three-part feedback (problem, why it matters, suggestion), and delivers a verdict recommendation. When a target journal is specified, journal-specific expectations are woven into review comments. The report follows real journal review conventions and includes inline Chinese translations for every concern and the verdict.

Trigger

Activates when the user asks to:

  • Review, peer-review, or simulate reviewer feedback for a paper
  • Review, simulated review, simulated reviewer feedback

Example invocations:

  • "Review this paper" / "审稿这篇论文"
  • "Give me a peer review of my draft" / "模拟评审我的论文"
  • "Simulate a reviewer for my CEUS submission"
  • "帮我做一个模拟审稿"

Modes

Mode Default Behavior
direct Yes Single-pass read-analyze-report workflow, produces complete review
batch Not supported -- review requires full-paper context

Default mode: direct. User says "review this paper" and gets a complete review report.

Mode inference: Default is always direct. There is no partial or iterative review mode.

References

Required (always loaded)

File Purpose
references/expression-patterns.md Academic expression patterns overview for writing quality assessment

Leaf Hints (loaded based on paper sections)

File When to Load
references/expression-patterns/introduction-and-gap.md Assessing introduction or background sections
references/expression-patterns/methods-and-data.md Assessing methods or data sections
references/expression-patterns/results-and-discussion.md Assessing results or discussion sections
references/expression-patterns/conclusions-and-claims.md Assessing conclusion sections
references/expression-patterns/geography-domain.md Paper involves spatial, urban, or planning topics

Journal Template (conditional)

  • When user specifies a target journal, load references/journals/[journal].md.
  • If template missing, refuse: "Journal template for [X] not found. Available: CEUS."
  • Journal preferences inform review comments where relevant, but core dimensions and weights remain unchanged across all journals.

Loading Rules

  • Load expression patterns overview at the start.
  • Load section-specific leaves during analysis based on paper sections encountered.
  • Anti-AI patterns are NOT loaded by default. This is a review skill, not a detection skill.
  • If an expression pattern leaf is missing, proceed with general writing quality assessment and warn the user.

Ask Strategy

Before starting, ask about:

  1. Target journal (if not specified) -- determines whether journal-specific criteria appear in review
  2. Input source: file path or pasted text (if ambiguous from trigger)

Rules:

  • Never ask more than 2 questions before producing the review.
  • In direct mode, skip pre-questions if the user provided enough context in the trigger.
  • Use Structured Interaction when available; fall back to plain-text questions otherwise.

Workflow

Step 1: Collect Context

  • Load references/expression-patterns.md overview.
  • If target journal specified, load references/journals/[journal].md. If template missing, refuse with message: "Journal template for [X] not found. Available: CEUS."
  • Read user input: file via Read tool, or pasted text from conversation.
  • Guard -- full paper required: If input is partial (only introduction, only methods, etc.), refuse with message: "This Skill requires the full paper for review. Please provide the complete manuscript."
  • Guard -- minimum length: If input is under ~300 words, warn: "Text appears too short for a full paper review. Provide the complete manuscript."

Step 2: Analyze Paper

  • Read the full paper to understand claims, evidence structure, and writing quality.
  • Load relevant expression pattern leaves based on paper sections encountered (introduction-and-gap.md for intro, methods-and-data.md for methods, etc.) to inform Writing Quality dimension.
  • If journal template loaded, cross-reference journal-specific expectations and note where the paper falls short of journal fit.
  • Assess across all five dimensions:
    1. Novelty -- Is the contribution genuinely new? Incremental or transformative?
    2. Methodology -- Is the experimental design sound? Baselines adequate? Ablation studies present?
    3. Writing Quality -- Expression clarity, academic register, AI-sounding patterns, terminology consistency
    4. Presentation -- Figure/table quality, section organization, flow between sections
    5. Significance -- Does the work matter? Practical or theoretical impact?
  • IMPORTANT: Generate concerns FIRST, then derive dimension scores from the concerns. This prevents score-concern inconsistency.

Step 3: Generate Review Report

Write the review report in the following locked structure:

# Peer Review Report

**Paper:** [title or filename]
**Target Journal:** [journal name or "General"]
**Date:** [date]

## Scoring Overview

| Dimension | Score (1-10) | Justification |
|-----------|:---:|---------------|
| Novelty | X | [one-line justification] |
| Methodology | X | [one-line justification] |
| Writing Quality | X | [one-line justification] |
| Presentation | X | [one-line justification] |
| Significance | X | [one-line justification] |

## Major Concerns

### Major Concern N: [Descriptive Title]

**Section:** [section name, e.g., "Results (Section 4)"]

**Problem:** [description of the issue]

**Why this matters:** [impact on quality or publishability]

**Suggestion:** [one-sentence directional guidance]

> **[Chinese]** [Chinese translation of all three parts]

## Minor Concerns

### Minor Concern N: [Descriptive Title]

[Same three-part structure with inline Chinese translation]

## Questions for Authors

1. [Question with enough context]
   > **[Chinese]** [Chinese translation]

## Verdict

**Recommendation:** [Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject]

[One-sentence summary of the overall assessment]

> **[Chinese]** [Chinese translation of recommendation and summary]

Chinese translation rules:

  • Use inline blockquote format (> **[Chinese]** ...) immediately after each concern's English text.
  • Preserve domain terminology precisely in Chinese (e.g., "ablation study" as "消融实验", not a generic paraphrase).
  • Each Chinese blockquote covers all three parts (problem, why, suggestion) in a single block.
  • The Verdict section also receives an inline Chinese translation.

Step 4: Output

  • File input: Write the review report to {input_filename_without_ext}_review.md in the same directory as the input file. If input filename is unclear, use review-report.md.
  • Pasted text input: Present the complete review report directly in conversation.
  • Report the total number of major concerns, minor concerns, and questions identified.

Output Contract

Output Format Condition
Review report Markdown file or conversation output Always
Scoring overview 5-dimension table with 1-10 scores Always
Concern count Summary line (N major, N minor, N questions) Always reported

Edge Cases

Situation Handling
Input is partial (only one section) Refuse: "This Skill requires the full paper for review."
Input too short (< 300 words) Warn: "Text appears too short for a full paper review."
Input language is Chinese Warn and suggest Translation Skill first; proceed if user confirms
Journal template missing when journal specified Refuse: "Journal template for [X] not found. Available: CEUS."
No significant weaknesses found Produce report with high scores; note strengths rather than fabricating concerns
Paper clearly outside journal scope Flag as a Major Concern about journal fit

Fallbacks

Scenario Fallback
Structured Interaction unavailable Ask 1-2 plain-text questions (journal + input source)
Expression pattern reference missing Proceed with general writing quality assessment; warn user
Journal template missing (no journal specified) Ask once; if declined, review with general academic criteria
Write tool fails for output file Present report in conversation instead

Skill: reviewer-simulation-skill Conventions: references/skill-conventions.md