academic-paper-reviewer

name	academic-paper-reviewer
description	ARS-derived manuscript review skill for multi-perspective academic critique, methodology review, revision risk analysis, and re-review in DevNexus-Research.
metadata	{"origin":"academic-research-skills","relationship":"adapted-from","upstream_repository":"https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills","upstream_source_path":"academic-paper-reviewer/SKILL.md","upstream_commit":"af09cf54c1db55cb10148e0f11db94c389f8214d","upstream_content_sha256":"7b594fdd5812e5d80ce094c420f14aa5e0759fe12567adea1c4d8edad7e71a36","upstream_author":"Cheng-I Wu","upstream_license":"CC-BY-NC-4.0","license_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/","modification_notes":"Adapted into a self-contained DevNexus-Research review skill with read-only review posture and DevNexus review-package outputs.","no_endorsement":"DevNexus-Research does not imply endorsement by Cheng-I Wu or by Academic Research Skills."}

Academic Paper Reviewer

Use this ARS-derived skill when the user asks for peer review, manuscript critique, referee-style feedback, methodology review, re-review, or revision risk analysis. It is bundled with DevNexus-Research and does not require an external ARS checkout.

Allowed Mutation Mode

Read only. Do not edit manuscripts or research artifacts from this skill unless the user explicitly asks you to record review findings into a review package or revision matrix.

Artifact Inputs

• Manuscript root or draft export
• Research brief
• Source manifest
• Claim register
• Bibliography state
• Prior review package or revision matrix for re-review

Artifact Outputs

• Review package
• Editorial decision rationale
• Methodology and evidence-risk notes
• Revision candidates
• Re-review verification notes

Source Support

Treat review claims as accountable judgments. Cite manuscript locations, artifact entries, source-manifest records, or bibliography keys where relevant. Distinguish observed problems from reviewer preferences and from issues that need human disciplinary judgment.

Human Checkpoints

Ask whether the user wants a full review, quick assessment, methodology focus, guided review, or re-review. The user decides which critiques become revision tasks and which reviewer perspectives are out of scope.

Workflow

1. Identify field, paper type, method, maturity, and review goal.
2. Review from multiple perspectives: editor fit, methodology, domain contribution, cross-disciplinary relevance, and strongest counterargument.
3. Separate blocking issues from optional improvements.
4. Flag unsupported claims, citation risks, missing limitations, and unclear contribution framing.
5. Produce a review package with severity, evidence, and suggested next action.
6. For re-review, compare changes against the revision matrix instead of restarting from a blank review.

ARS Provenance And License

Adapted from Academic Research Skills academic-paper-reviewer/SKILL.md by Cheng-I Wu, upstream commit af09cf54c1db55cb10148e0f11db94c389f8214d, source SHA-256 7b594fdd5812e5d80ce094c420f14aa5e0759fe12567adea1c4d8edad7e71a36, licensed CC-BY-NC-4.0. This adaptation is for DevNexus-Research packaging, artifact conventions, and bundled baseline availability. No endorsement by the upstream author or project is implied.