ai-review

name	ai-review
description	AI paper reviewer. Use when the user says 'review my paper', 'help me review this paper', '审稿', 'give me feedback on my paper', 'check my manuscript', 'evaluate this paper for NeurIPS/ICLR/EuroSys'. Accepts PDF files and produces structured narrative reviews with venue-specific dimensional scores and Accept/Reject recommendation.
metadata	{"clawphd":{"emoji":"📝"}}

When to use

• "Review my paper at /path/to/paper.pdf"
• "Help me prepare my NeurIPS submission — review this draft"
• "给我审一下这篇论文"
• "Check if this paper is ready for ICLR submission"
• "Give me peer-review style feedback on this manuscript"
• "Evaluate this paper for EuroSys, tell me the scores"

Tool

paper_review(pdf_path, venue="NeurIPS", mode="sot", num_reflections=1)

Parameters

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
pdf_path	string	yes	Absolute path to the paper PDF
venue	string	no	Target conference: NeurIPS / ICLR / ICML / EuroSys / OSDI / SOSP / CVPR / ICCV / General (default: General)
mode	string	no	sot = Strength-of-Thought multi-pass (default, highest quality); pure = single-pass (faster); vlm = send page images to vision model (evaluates figures/typesetting)
num_reflections	integer	no	Self-reflection iterations (default: 1)

Return value

{
  "status": "ok",
  "output_path": "/home/user/.clawphd/workspace/outputs/paper_review/my_paper/review.md",
  "venue": "NeurIPS",
  "decision": "Accept",
  "overall_score": 7,
  "scores": {
    "Originality": 3,
    "Quality": 3,
    "Clarity": 4,
    "Significance": 3,
    "Soundness": 3,
    "Presentation": 4,
    "Contribution": 3,
    "overall": 7,
    "confidence": 4,
    "decision": "Accept",
    "score_rationale": "Solid contribution with strong experiments and clear presentation, minor novelty concerns."
  },
  "warnings": []
}

Scoring rubric

Scores follow real conference review forms:

Venue	Dimensions	Overall scale
NeurIPS / ICLR / ICML	Originality, Quality, Clarity, Significance, Soundness, Presentation, Contribution (each 1–4)	1–10
EuroSys / OSDI / SOSP	Novelty, Systems_Contribution, Evaluation_Rigor, Clarity (each 1–4)	1–10
CVPR / ICCV	Technical_Novelty, Soundness, Experiments, Presentation, Impact (each 1–4)	1–6

Rubric source: SakanaAI/AI-Scientist (12.5k stars) — NeurIPS official review form.

Example conversation

User: 帮我把这篇论文按照 NeurIPS 标准审一下：/home/user/papers/my_draft.pdf

Agent: [calls paper_review with pdf_path="/home/user/papers/my_draft.pdf", venue="NeurIPS", mode="sot"] → Review saved to ~/.clawphd/workspace/outputs/paper_review/my_draft/review.md → Decision: Accept | Overall: 7/10 → Originality: 3/4 | Soundness: 3/4 | Contribution: 3/4

Output layout

outputs/paper_review/<paper_stem>/
├── review.md    # narrative review (6 sections) + score table
└── meta.json    # venue, mode, scores, elapsed time

review.md structure

# Paper Review: <title>
> Venue: NeurIPS | Mode: sot | Generated: 2026-03-22

## Synopsis
## Summary of Review
## Strengths
## Weaknesses
## Suggestions for Improvement
## References

---

## Scores (NeurIPS)
| Dimension | Score |
...
**Decision: Accept**