paper-review-panel

name

paper-review-panel

description

Run a top-conference-style review of research papers for CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, ICLR, NeurIPS/NIPS, AAAI, and similar venues. Use when Codex is asked to review a conference paper, perform an internal or mock review, run a reviewer-panel audit, predict accept/reject risk or reviewer scores, use multiple reviewers or subagents, assess paper readiness before rebuttal or final polish, or synthesize reviewer-like concerns without editing the paper.

Paper Review Panel

Core Rule

Review by default. Do not edit the paper, mutate LaTeX, change figures, rerun experiments, or patch files unless the user separately asks for implementation. The output is an official-review-style synthesis plus compact revision priorities.

Workflow

1. Ground the review in artifacts.

   • Prefer the compiled PDF first when available; inspect layout, figures, tables, appendix, and references as a reviewer would see them.
   • Read the source text, bibliography, figure/table sources, logs, or result artifacts only as needed to verify claims and locate concrete anchors.
   • Use $research-evidence for citation/reference sanity checks or literature positioning when a review finding depends on external evidence.
   • For novelty, related-work, score-prediction, reviewer-risk, rebuttal-readiness, or final-submission reviews, run a recent-literature audit through $research-evidence before finalizing novelty or acceptance risk. Do not require this extra pass for casual local or prose-only reviews unless novelty or missing citations are part of the ask.
   • If only a section is provided, label the result as a partial review and do not score the full paper as if all sections were available.

2. Choose solo or panel mode.

   • Spawn subagents only when the user explicitly asks for subagents, a reviewer panel, multiple reviewers, or parallel review.
   • If subagents are not explicitly authorized, perform a solo review using the same three-reviewer rubric.
   • When panel mode is authorized, read references/subagent-panel.md and launch three independent read-only reviewer agents.

3. Use the three-reviewer lens.

   • Reviewer 1: contribution, novelty, positioning, motivation, venue fit.
   • Reviewer 2: method, technical correctness, experiments, metrics, evidence.
   • Reviewer 3: writing, figures, tables, consistency, reproducibility, appendix, reviewer readability.
   • Read references/reviewer-roles.md for detailed role prompts.

4. Synthesize rather than concatenate.

   • Do not paste raw subagent reviews by default.
   • Judge each concern independently: valid issue, clarity-induced misunderstanding, unsupported or incorrect reviewer claim, or optional polish.
   • Preserve concrete anchors such as section, page, table, figure, equation, appendix item, or source location whenever available.

5. Report in official-review style.

   • Use English by default.
   • Use venue-aware scoring when the venue is known. If unknown, use Overall score 1-10 and Confidence 1-5.
   • End with score, confidence, acceptance risk, and compact revision priorities.
   • Read references/output-format.md before drafting the final synthesis.

Review Standards

• Treat unsupported claims, weak baselines, missing ablations, protocol leakage, metric ambiguity, and inconsistent appendix/main-paper numbers as high-risk issues.
• For dataset and benchmark papers, separate dataset contribution, protocol validity, reference baseline strength, and evidence that the benchmark tests the claimed capability.
• For method papers, separate novelty, technical correctness, implementation plausibility, ablation quality, and comparison fairness.
• Do not fabricate citations or assume experiments exist. If evidence is missing, mark the concern as a risk or requested evidence.
• For high-risk novelty or readiness judgments, do not rely on memory or the paper's current bibliography alone. Use $research-evidence to test direct and adjacent recent work, terminology variants, and source-coverage limits.
• If a novelty, related-work, or citation-authenticity concern remains uncertain after checking, report the uncertainty as reviewer risk rather than treating the concern as proven.
• Read references/review-checklist.md for the full audit checklist.

Reference Routing

• Read references/subagent-panel.md only for explicit subagent/panel requests.
• Read references/reviewer-roles.md for role-specific prompts and solo-review lenses.
• Read references/output-format.md before writing the final review.
• Read references/review-checklist.md for deep or high-stakes readiness audits.