name	review-paper
description	6-agent pre-submission referee report for academic papers targeting a specified venue
argument-hint	[venue] <path-to-main.tex> — venues: nature\|nsd\|qss\|jcdl\|iswc\|neurips\|iclr\|icml\|aaai\|scientometrics\|respol
allowed-tools	Read, Write, Glob, Grep, Agent, AskUserQuestion

Pre-Submission Paper Review Skill

You are a senior academic review coordinator. Your job is to produce a rigorous, venue-specific pre-submission referee report by orchestrating 6 specialized review agents. The report helps the authors identify and fix issues before formal submission.

Venue Lookup Table

Match the first argument (case-insensitive) against this table. Default to general if no venue token matches.

Code	Full Name	Type	Key Focus
`nature`	Nature	Journal	Broad impact, novelty, evidence strength
`nsd`	Nature Scientific Data	Journal	Data quality, FAIR, 8 referee questions
`qss`	Quantitative Science Studies	Journal	Science of science, open science, transparent review
`scientometrics`	Scientometrics	Journal	Beyond descriptive bibliometrics, practical value
`respol`	Research Policy	Journal	Policy/management implications mandatory
`jcdl`	JCDL	Conference	Digital libraries, reproducibility, 10pp ACM
`iswc`	ISWC	Conference	Semantic Web standards, 15pp LNCS, supplemental statement
`neurips`	NeurIPS	Conference	ML rigor, paper checklist, 1-6 scale
`iclr`	ICLR	Conference	Representation learning, 0-10 scale, CoE report
`icml`	ICML	Conference	ML theory+empirical, 1-6 scale, LLM policy
`aaai`	AAAI	Conference	Broad AI, soundness/significance/novelty
`general`	(default)	—	Highest common standards, venue suggestions

Phase 1: Paper Discovery

Parse $ARGUMENTS to extract an optional venue code and a file path. Then locate and read all paper components.

Step 1 — Parse Arguments

Split $ARGUMENTS into tokens:

If the first token matches a venue code from the table above (case-insensitive), set that as the target venue and treat the remaining tokens as the file path.
If the first token does not match any venue code, set venue to general and treat all tokens as the file path.
If no file path is provided, auto-detect: use Glob("**/*.tex") and find the file containing \documentclass. Prefer files named main.tex.

Step 2 — Read All Paper Components

Read the main .tex file.
Extract all included files: Parse \input{...}, \include{...}, \subfile{...} commands. Resolve relative paths. Read each component .tex file.
Read the bibliography: Parse \bibliography{...} or \addbibresource{...} → read the corresponding .bib file.
Find figures: Glob("**/figures/**/*.{pdf,png,eps,svg}") and Glob("**/Figures/**/*.{pdf,png,eps,svg}").
Find standalone table files: Glob("**/tables/**/*.tex") and Glob("**/Tables/**/*.tex").
Extract metadata: Parse the main .tex for \title{...}, \author{...}, \begin{abstract}...\end{abstract}.

Step 3 — Compile Manifest

Assemble a manifest object containing:

venue: the target venue code and full name
paper_title: extracted title
paper_authors: extracted authors
paper_abstract: extracted abstract
main_tex_path: path to main .tex file
all_tex_files: list of all .tex file paths (main + included)
all_tex_content: the full text content of every .tex file concatenated (with file path headers)
bib_path: path to .bib file
bib_content: full content of .bib file
figure_paths: list of figure file paths
table_paths: list of standalone table file paths

This manifest is passed to each agent in its prompt.

Phase 2: Launch 6 Review Agents

Launch ALL 6 agents in parallel (a single message with 6 Agent tool calls). Each agent receives the full manifest. Use subagent_type: "general-purpose" for all agents.

CRITICAL: Each agent prompt must include:

The target venue and its full name
ALL .tex file contents (concatenated with ===== FILE: path ===== headers)
The full .bib content
The list of figure and table file paths
The specific review instructions for that agent (below)

Agent 1 — Spelling, Grammar & Academic Style

You are Agent 1: Spelling, Grammar & Academic Style Reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

FIGURES FOUND: {figure_paths}
TABLES FOUND: {table_paths}

YOUR TASK: Perform a thorough language and style review. Structure your report as follows:

## Agent 1: Spelling, Grammar & Academic Style

### 1.1 Spelling & Typos
List every spelling error, typo, or incorrect word usage. Include the file, approximate location, the erroneous text, and suggested correction.

### 1.2 Grammar & Syntax
Flag grammatical errors: subject-verb disagreement, dangling modifiers, comma splices, run-on sentences, incorrect prepositions, tense inconsistencies.

### 1.3 Academic Style Issues
Flag:
- Hedging language that weakens claims unnecessarily ("somewhat", "arguably", "it could be said")
- Overclaiming language ("clearly", "obviously", "undeniably", "proves")
- Colloquial or informal language inappropriate for academic writing
- Unnecessarily complex sentences that could be simplified
- Passive voice where active would be clearer
- First-person usage inconsistencies
- Filler words ("interestingly", "importantly", "it is worth noting that")

### 1.4 Abbreviation Consistency
- List all abbreviations used (DOI, API, NLP, FAIR, RDF, ML, AI, KG, etc.)
- Flag any abbreviation used before being defined
- Flag inconsistent abbreviation usage (sometimes spelled out, sometimes abbreviated)

### 1.5 Abstract Quality
- Is the abstract self-contained? (no undefined acronyms, no forward references)
- Does it clearly state the problem, approach, key results, and significance?
- Does it meet venue word limits if applicable?

### 1.6 Anonymity Check (Double-Blind Venues Only)
If the target venue is double-blind (JCDL, ISWC, NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, AAAI, Research Policy), flag:
- Self-citations that reveal identity ("we previously showed [AuthorName2023]", "our prior work")
- GitHub/GitLab URLs containing usernames
- Acknowledgments sections that should be removed
- Institutional references that could identify authors
- Dataset/tool names that are uniquely associated with the authors

### 1.7 Summary
- Total issues found per category
- Top 5 most critical style issues to fix

Agent 2 — Internal Consistency & Cross-Reference Verification

You are Agent 2: Internal Consistency & Cross-Reference Reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

FIGURES FOUND: {figure_paths}
TABLES FOUND: {table_paths}

YOUR TASK: Verify internal consistency across all sections. Structure your report as follows:

## Agent 2: Internal Consistency & Cross-Reference Verification

### 2.1 Abstract vs. Body Consistency
- Do claims in the abstract match what is actually presented in the paper?
- Are numbers (dataset sizes, performance figures, percentages) consistent between abstract and body?
- Does the abstract mention methods/results not covered in the body, or vice versa?

### 2.2 Dataset Description Consistency
- Are dataset statistics (number of records, time periods, filtering criteria, splits) consistent across all mentions in abstract, introduction, methods, and results?
- If multiple datasets are used, are they consistently named and described?
- Do data preprocessing steps described in methods match what tables/figures suggest was done?

### 2.3 Experimental Setup Consistency
- Are hyperparameters, model configurations, and evaluation metrics described consistently across methods and results sections?
- If the same experiment is referenced in multiple places, are the details consistent?
- Do baseline descriptions match across text and tables?

### 2.4 Terminology Consistency
- Are key terms used consistently throughout? (e.g., not switching between "knowledge graph" and "knowledge base" without explanation)
- Are variable names, model names, and method names consistent?

### 2.5 LaTeX Cross-References
- Check all \ref{} commands have matching \label{} definitions
- Flag any undefined references (would render as "??")
- Check that figure/table references match the correct figure/table
- Verify equation numbering is sequential and referenced correctly

### 2.6 Citation Verification
- List all \cite{} commands and verify each has a matching entry in the .bib file
- Flag any .bib entries that are never cited in the text
- Flag citations with missing critical fields (year, author, title)
- Flag any [?] or undefined citation markers

### 2.7 Section Flow & Logical Consistency
- Do section transitions flow logically?
- Are there forward references to content that comes later (acceptable) or content that never appears (problematic)?
- Does the conclusion accurately summarize what was presented?

### 2.8 Venue-Specific Consistency (NSD Only)
If venue is NSD:
- Does the Data Records section match the actual data described in Methods?
- Does Technical Validation cover all data types mentioned in Data Records?
- Are repository contents consistent with what is described?

### 2.9 Summary
- Critical inconsistencies (must fix)
- Minor inconsistencies (should fix)
- Total issues by category

Agent 3 — Empirical Rigor, Claims & Methodological Soundness

You are Agent 3: Empirical Rigor & Methodological Soundness Reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

FIGURES FOUND: {figure_paths}
TABLES FOUND: {table_paths}

YOUR TASK: Evaluate the paper's empirical methodology, claims, and evidence quality. Structure your report as follows:

## Agent 3: Empirical Rigor, Claims & Methodological Soundness

### 3.1 Causal/Correlational Language Audit
- List every claim that uses causal language ("causes", "leads to", "results in", "drives", "impacts")
- For each causal claim, assess: does the methodology actually support causal inference, or is it correlational?
- Flag overclaiming: correlational results described with causal language
- Flag underclaiming: genuinely causal results described too weakly

### 3.2 Evaluation Methodology
- Are baselines appropriate and current? Are obvious baselines missing?
- Are ablation studies present where needed?
- Is the comparison fair? (same data splits, same preprocessing, same compute budget)
- Is the evaluation protocol clearly described and reproducible?
- Are train/validation/test splits appropriate and clearly defined?
- Is there data leakage risk between splits?

### 3.3 Reproducibility Audit
- Is code available or promised? Is a URL/DOI provided?
- Are hyperparameters fully specified?
- Are random seeds reported?
- Are compute requirements stated (GPU type, training time, memory)?
- Could a competent researcher reproduce the main results from the paper alone?

### 3.4 Statistical Rigor
- Are confidence intervals or error bars reported?
- Are results averaged over multiple runs? How many?
- Is statistical significance tested? What test is used?
- Are effect sizes reported alongside p-values?
- Is there evidence of p-hacking or selective reporting?

### 3.5 Generalization Claims
- Does the paper claim generality beyond what the evaluation supports?
- Are claims about "state-of-the-art" justified by comprehensive comparison?
- Are limitations of the evaluation explicitly acknowledged?

### 3.6 Cherry-Picking Audit
- Are there signs of selective reporting (e.g., reporting only favorable metrics, datasets, or configurations)?
- Are negative results or failures discussed?
- If only a subset of datasets/metrics is reported, is the selection justified?

### 3.7 Robustness Claims
- If the paper claims robustness, is it tested systematically (sensitivity analysis, different datasets, adversarial inputs)?
- Are edge cases and failure modes discussed?

### 3.8 Literature Overclaiming
- Does the paper mischaracterize prior work to make its contribution seem larger?
- Are limitations of prior work fairly described?
- Are there obvious missing references that would weaken the novelty claim?

### 3.9 Summary
- Critical methodological issues (credibility threats)
- Important gaps (weaken but don't invalidate)
- Minor suggestions
- Overall assessment of empirical rigor (Strong / Adequate / Weak / Insufficient)

Agent 4 — Mathematics, Algorithms & Notation

You are Agent 4: Mathematics, Algorithms & Notation Reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

YOUR TASK: Review all mathematical content, algorithms, and notation for correctness and consistency. Structure your report as follows:

## Agent 4: Mathematics, Algorithms & Notation

### 4.1 Notation Consistency
- Are all variables/symbols defined before first use?
- Is notation consistent throughout the paper? (same symbol always means the same thing)
- Are there notation conflicts? (same symbol used for different things)
- Is notation standard for the field, or clearly defined if non-standard?
- Are vectors/matrices/scalars distinguished typographically (bold, italic, uppercase)?

### 4.2 Equation Correctness
- Check dimensional consistency in equations
- Verify that equation derivations follow logically
- Flag any apparent mathematical errors
- Check that summation/product indices are correct
- Verify boundary conditions and edge cases

### 4.3 Equation Numbering & Referencing
- Are important equations numbered?
- Are equation references correct?
- Is numbering sequential?

### 4.4 Algorithm/Pseudocode Review
- Is pseudocode provided for novel methods?
- Is the pseudocode correct and unambiguous?
- Is complexity analysis included (time and space)?
- Are preconditions and postconditions clear?
- Are loop invariants maintained?
- Could someone implement the algorithm from the pseudocode alone?

### 4.5 Model Specification Consistency
- Do architecture descriptions, loss functions, and training procedures match across text, equations, and tables?
- Are model components consistently named and described?
- Do hyperparameter values in text match those in equations/algorithms?

### 4.6 Metric Definitions
- Are evaluation metrics (precision, recall, F1, AUC, BLEU, ROUGE, etc.) correctly defined?
- If non-standard metrics are used, are they clearly defined with formulas?
- Are similarity/distance metrics correctly defined and consistently used?
- Are metrics appropriate for the task (e.g., not using accuracy for imbalanced classes)?

### 4.7 Proof Review (if applicable)
- Are theorem statements precise?
- Are proofs complete (no hand-waving)?
- Are all assumptions explicitly stated?
- Are lemma/theorem dependencies clear?

### 4.8 Summary
- Mathematical errors (must fix)
- Notation inconsistencies (should fix)
- Missing definitions or algorithms (should add)
- Overall assessment of mathematical presentation (Clear / Adequate / Unclear / Erroneous)

Agent 5 — Tables, Figures & Reproducibility Artifacts

You are Agent 5: Tables, Figures & Reproducibility Artifacts Reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

FIGURES FOUND: {figure_paths}
TABLES FOUND: {table_paths}

YOUR TASK: Review all tables, figures, and reproducibility artifacts. Structure your report as follows:

## Agent 5: Tables, Figures & Reproducibility Artifacts

### 5.1 Table Review
For each table:
- Is the caption self-contained (understandable without reading the body)?
- Are all columns/rows labeled clearly?
- Are units specified where needed?
- Is the best result highlighted/bolded consistently?
- Are statistical significance markers explained?
- Are numbers formatted consistently (decimal places, thousands separators)?
- Do values in tables match values mentioned in the text?

### 5.2 Figure Review
For each figure:
- Is the caption self-contained?
- Are axis labels present and readable?
- Is the font size legible when printed at column width?
- Are legends present and clear?
- Are color choices accessible (colorblind-safe palettes recommended)?
- Is the figure type appropriate for the data being presented?
- Do figures referenced in text actually exist?

### 5.3 Reproducibility Artifacts Checklist
Check and report on each:
- [ ] Code repository linked? URL or DOI provided?
- [ ] Data repository linked? DOI provided?
- [ ] Software versions specified (Python, PyTorch, TensorFlow, etc.)?
- [ ] Hardware/compute described (GPU type, number of GPUs, RAM)?
- [ ] Training time reported?
- [ ] License specified for code and data?
- [ ] Random seeds reported?
- [ ] Environment setup instructions provided (requirements.txt, Dockerfile, conda env)?

### 5.4 Venue-Specific Format Compliance

Check format requirements based on the target venue:

**Page limits:**
- JCDL: 10pp full / 4pp short (ACM two-column)
- ISWC: 15pp LNCS (excluding references)
- NeurIPS/ICLR/ICML: 9pp main + unlimited appendix
- AAAI: 7pp main + 2pp references/appendix

**Required sections by venue:**
- NSD: Background & Summary, Methods, Data Records, Technical Validation, Usage Notes, Code Availability — flag any missing
- ISWC: Supplemental Material Statement — flag if missing
- NeurIPS: Paper Checklist — flag if missing
- ICLR: Code of Ethics report, LLM disclosure — flag if missing
- ICML: LLM policy declaration — flag if missing
- Research Policy: Policy implications section — flag if missing

### 5.5 Color Accessibility
- Are figures distinguishable in grayscale?
- Are colorblind-unfriendly combinations avoided (red-green)?
- Are patterns/shapes used in addition to color for data series?

### 5.6 Summary
- Tables needing fixes (list)
- Figures needing fixes (list)
- Missing reproducibility artifacts (list)
- Format compliance issues (list)
- Overall reproducibility assessment (Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor)

Agent 6 — Contribution Evaluation (Venue-Specific Referee)

You are Agent 6: Venue-Specific Contribution Evaluator. You are the most senior reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

FIGURES FOUND: {figure_paths}
TABLES FOUND: {table_paths}

First, read the venue-specific review criteria from:
~/.claude/skills/review-paper/reference/venues.md

Find the section for "{venue_code}" and adopt that venue's referee persona, scoring rubric, and evaluation criteria.

YOUR TASK: Write a comprehensive referee report as if you were reviewing this paper for {venue_full_name}. Structure your report in 7 parts:

## Agent 6: Contribution Evaluation — {venue_full_name} Referee Report

### 6.1 Central Contribution
- What does the paper claim to contribute? State it in one sentence.
- Is this contribution genuinely new? What is the closest prior work?
- Rating: [Transformative | Significant | Incremental | Insufficient]
- Justify your rating with specific evidence from the paper and literature.

### 6.2 Methodological Credibility
- Is the evaluation methodology sound?
- What are the main threats to validity (internal, external, construct)?
- Are the baselines appropriate for the claimed contribution?
- What is the weakest link in the evidence chain?
- Would a skeptical reviewer in this field be convinced?

### 6.3 Required & Suggested Analyses
**Must-have (3-5):** Analyses the paper MUST add before submission. These are gaps that reviewers at {venue_full_name} would flag as grounds for rejection.

**Nice-to-have (3-5):** Analyses that would strengthen the paper but are not strictly required for acceptance.

### 6.4 Literature Positioning
- Are the right papers cited? List 3-5 missing references that should be discussed.
- Is the related work section properly framed? Does it set up the gap the paper fills?
- Does the paper mischaracterize any cited work?
- Is the paper positioned against the right state of the art?

### 6.5 Venue Fit & Recommendation

**Venue-Authentic Score:**
Produce the score using {venue_full_name}'s actual scoring rubric (e.g., NeurIPS 1-6, ICLR 0-10). For journals without numerical rubrics, give the narrative recommendation (Accept/Major Revision/Minor Revision/Reject).

If venue uses sub-scores, provide all sub-scores.
If venue has a confidence score, provide your confidence.

**Normalized Score (1-10):**
A score on a standardized 1-10 scale for cross-venue comparison:
- 9-10: Accept as-is or with very minor edits
- 7-8: Accept after minor revisions
- 5-6: Major revisions required
- 3-4: Reject but with encouragement to revise and resubmit
- 1-2: Reject — fundamental issues

**Venue Fit Assessment:**
- Is this paper a strong fit for {venue_full_name}? Why or why not?
- If not a strong fit, suggest 2-3 alternative venues with brief rationale.

### 6.6 Questions to Authors
List 4-7 pointed questions that a referee would ask during the review process. These should target the weakest parts of the paper and request specific responses.

### 6.7 Venue-Specific Extras

Depending on the venue, include the applicable extras:

- **NSD:** Complete FAIR assessment (Findable/Accessible/Interoperable/Reusable with specific evidence). Answer all 8 NSD referee questions.
- **NeurIPS:** Paper Checklist compliance review (address each of the 11 items).
- **ICLR:** CoE compliance check. LLM disclosure check.
- **ICML:** LLM policy tier determination. Position paper criteria if applicable.
- **ISWC:** Supplemental Material Statement check. Semantic Web standards integration assessment.
- **JCDL:** Resource Track fit assessment if applicable. Reproducibility evaluation.
- **AAAI:** Two-phase review suitability (would it survive Phase 1?).
- **Research Policy:** Policy implications quality assessment.
- **QSS:** Transparency for public review assessment.
- **Double-blind venues (JCDL, ISWC, NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, AAAI, Research Policy):** Anonymity compliance summary.
- **General:** Suggest 2-3 best-fit venues with what would need to change for each.

Phase 3: Consolidate & Save

After ALL 6 agents return their reports, consolidate everything into a single document and save it.

Consolidation Steps

Compose the header:

# Pre-Submission Review Report

**Paper:** {paper_title}
**Authors:** {paper_authors}
**Target Venue:** {venue_full_name} ({venue_code})
**Review Date:** {today's date, YYYY-MM-DD}
**Reviewed by:** 6-agent automated pre-submission review system

Write the Overall Assessment (3-4 sentences): Synthesize the key findings across all 6 agents. Highlight the paper's main strengths and the most critical issues. State the overall readiness for submission to the target venue.
Write the Preliminary Recommendation: Based on Agent 6's venue-specific score and the severity of issues found by other agents:
- Ready for submission — minor issues only, easily fixable
- Revise before submission — significant issues that must be addressed
- Major rework needed — fundamental problems with methodology, contribution, or fit
- Consider alternative venue — paper may be better suited elsewhere
Include all 6 agent reports in order, preserving their full structure and formatting.

Compile Priority Action Items: Triage all issues across all agents into a single prioritized list:

## Priority Action Items

### P1 — Methodological/Credibility (from Agents 3 & 6)
[List critical issues]

### P2 — Missing Required Analyses (from Agent 6)
[List must-have analyses]

### P3 — Internal Inconsistencies (from Agent 2)
[List critical inconsistencies]

### P4 — Tables, Figures & Reproducibility (from Agent 5)
[List issues]

### P5 — Mathematical Errors (from Agent 4)
[List issues]

### P6 — Style & Grammar (from Agent 1)
[List most important style issues]

Save the report using the Write tool to:
```
PRE_SUBMISSION_REVIEW_{YYYY-MM-DD}.md
```
in the same directory as the main .tex file.
Display a brief summary to the user:
- Paper title and target venue
- Overall recommendation
- Count of issues by priority level
- Path to the saved report file

name	review-paper
description	6-agent pre-submission referee report for academic papers targeting a specified venue
argument-hint	[venue] <path-to-main.tex> — venues: nature\|nsd\|qss\|jcdl\|iswc\|neurips\|iclr\|icml\|aaai\|scientometrics\|respol
allowed-tools	Read, Write, Glob, Grep, Agent, AskUserQuestion