academic-paper-review

name	academic-paper-review
description	Use when: review an academic paper with a structured review form and multiple reviewer personas.

Goal: a fair, specific review that separates contribution from flaws.

Use for:

• reviewing a paper before submission or as a referee
• giving structured feedback on a draft
• assessing whether claims are supported by evidence

Workflow:

1. Load the paper; extract its text and section structure.
2. Review from three personas: harsh-but-fair, harsh-critical, open-minded.
3. For each persona, score with a structured review form (e.g. NeurIPS).
4. Reflect and refine each review for accuracy and soundness.
5. Aggregate: average scores, weighting overall and contribution highest.
6. Write a meta-review: consensus strengths, weaknesses, and a decision.

Assess:

• novelty relative to prior work
• soundness of methodology and analysis
• adequacy of baselines, ablations, and evaluation
• honesty about limitations and threats to validity

Rules:

• tie every critique to a specific passage or result
• find consensus across personas before deciding
• separate major issues from minor ones; suggest fixes
• judge the evidence, not the abstract's claims

Rules:

• tie every critique to a specific passage or result
• distinguish "wrong" from "not my preference"
• check claims against the actual evidence, not the abstract
• be rigorous and fair; acknowledge real strengths