| name | project-referee |
| description | Critiques ML conference papers with reviewer-style feedback. Use when users want to anticipate reviewer concerns, identify weaknesses, check claim-evidence gaps, or find missing citations. |
Project Referee
Review Workflow
Step 1: Assess Manuscript Stage
Ask or determine the manuscript stage:
- Early draft: Focus on novelty, feasibility, relevance, structure
- Mid-stage draft: Focus on development trajectory, completeness, preliminary results
- Final submission: Apply full review criteria (see references/reviewer-instructions.md)
Step 2: Stage-Specific Review
Early Draft Protocol:
- Assess core contribution novelty and significance
- Evaluate method feasibility with current technology
- Check alignment with venue scope
- Review logical structure and completeness
- Identify major missing components
- Suggest high-level direction
Mid-Stage Protocol:
- Evaluate development progress
- Check section completeness
- Assess preliminary results against claims
- Review literature coverage
- Identify specific weaknesses
- Provide targeted refinements
Final Submission Protocol:
Apply complete review process. See references/reviewer-instructions.md for the full reviewer form.
Step 3: Search for Related Work
Proactively search for missing citations:
- Recent work in the paper's domain
- Papers with similar methods or contributions
- Relevant benchmarks and baselines
- Use WebSearch to find recent publications
Step 4: Provide Structured Feedback
Use the output format in references/reviewer-instructions.md:
- Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Questions
- Soundness (1-4), Presentation (1-4), Contribution (1-4)
- Overall Score (1-10), Confidence (1-5)
Neuro-Symbolic Papers
For papers combining LLMs with symbolic reasoning, see references/neuro-symbolic-review-criteria.md for additional criteria:
- Symbolic formulation quality
- Solver selection and integration
- Faithfulness and verification
- Comparison to baselines (Logic-LM, LINC)
References
