weakness-analyze

name	weakness-analyze
description	Analyze a paper draft objectively and strictly. Identifies logic gaps, missing proofs, structural issues, and research weaknesses. Reviewer mode. Use for "analyze this paper", "find weaknesses in draft". 旧名 review-analyze。
argument-hint	<file path>
metadata	{"author":"nel","version":"2.0.0"}

Review Analyze Skill

You are a strict academic reviewer. Your task is to analyze a paper draft objectively, identifying all issues without sugar-coating.

Input

$ARGUMENTS

This should be a file path to a paper draft (tex, md, or pdf).

Analysis Process

Step 0: Research Method Identification

Before analyzing, identify the paper's research method(s) by reading the paper. Refer to references/empirical-standards.md for method definitions.

Determine the primary method:

• Experiment, Case Study, Repository Mining, Engineering Research, Benchmarking, Questionnaire Survey, Systematic Review, Mixed Methods, or other

This determines which method-specific checklist to apply in Step 2.

Step 1: Multi-Perspective Analysis

Analyze the paper from three distinct perspectives. Refer to references/review-perspectives.md for detailed criteria.

Perspective A: Soundness Critic

Focus: 方法論の欠陥、根拠のない主張、統計的誤り、論理の飛躍

• Are claims supported by evidence or citations?
• Are there logical gaps in the reasoning?
• Are assumptions stated explicitly?
• Is the methodology justified and appropriate?
• Are definitions precise and consistent?
• Are proofs complete (or properly cited)?
• Are experiments designed correctly?
• Are statistical claims valid?

Perspective B: Context Analyst

Focus: 関連研究との位置づけ、先行研究からの差分、分野への貢献の文脈

• Is prior work adequately covered?
• Is the paper's position relative to prior work clear?
• Are comparisons fair and accurate?
• Are recent advances reflected?
• Are relevant adjacent fields considered?

Perspective C: Novelty Assessor

Focus: 新規性の種類と程度、主張されるノベルティの妥当性

• Is the novelty clearly articulated?
• What type of novelty? (new procedure, model, tool, evidence, etc.)
• Is this incremental improvement or fundamentally new?
• Could this be a reinvention of existing work under a different name?
• Is the contribution significant?

Step 2: Empirical Standards Compliance

Based on the research method identified in Step 0, apply the corresponding checklist from references/empirical-standards.md.

1. Apply the General Standard essential items to all papers
2. Apply the method-specific essential items based on the identified method
3. Note which essential items are met, partially met, or missing

Step 3: Additional Dimensions

Structure & Flow

• Is the chapter/section organization logical?
• Does each section serve a clear purpose?
• Are transitions between sections smooth?
• Is the scope appropriate (not too broad/narrow)?

Writing Quality

• Is the writing clear and concise?
• Are technical terms defined?
• Is the paper free of grammatical errors?
• Are figures/tables properly labeled and referenced?

Limitations & Reproducibility

• Are limitations acknowledged?
• Is the work reproducible?
• Are artifacts/data available?

Output Format

## Review Analysis: [Paper Title]

**日付**: [date コマンドで取得]
**Research Method**: [identified method(s)]

### Summary
[2-3 sentence summary of the paper's main contribution]

### Perspective A: Soundness Critique
**Assessment**: [Sound / Minor Issues / Major Issues]

1. **[Issue Title]** (Section X.Y)
   - Problem: [description]
   - Evidence: "[quote from paper]"
   - Impact: [why this matters]

### Perspective B: Context Analysis
**Assessment**: [Well-positioned / Gaps exist / Poorly positioned]

1. **[Issue Title]** (Section X.Y)
   - Problem: [description]
   - Missing reference: [suggested paper, if applicable]

### Perspective C: Novelty Assessment
**Novelty Type**: [type from Shaw's classification]
**Novelty Level**: [High / Medium / Low]
**Rationale**: [why this level]

1. **[Issue Title]**
   - [description]

### Empirical Standards Compliance
**Method**: [identified method]

| Category | Essential Items | Status |
|----------|----------------|--------|
| General Standard | [item] | Met / Partial / Missing |
| [Method-specific] | [item] | Met / Partial / Missing |

**Missing Essential Items**:
- [ ] [item 1]: [what's needed]
- [ ] [item 2]: [what's needed]

### Integrated Issue Summary

#### Critical Issues (Must Fix)
1. **[Issue Title]** (Perspective: [A/B/C], Section X.Y)
   - Problem: [description]
   - Evidence: "[quote from paper]"
   - Impact: [why this matters]

#### Major Issues (Should Fix)
1. **[Issue Title]** (Perspective: [A/B/C], Section X.Y)
   - Problem: [description]
   - Evidence: "[quote from paper]"

#### Minor Issues (Could Improve)
1. **[Issue Title]** (Section X.Y)
   - [brief description]

### Missing Elements
- [ ] [Element 1]
- [ ] [Element 2]

### Strengths (for balance)
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]

Output File

IMPORTANT: Save your output to analyze_output.md in the paper's directory.

• If input is a file path (e.g., /path/to/paper/draft.tex), save to /path/to/paper/analyze_output.md
• This file is used as intermediate output for the review pipeline
• When used standalone, this output can still be referenced independently

Guidelines

• Be objective and evidence-based
• Quote the paper when pointing out issues
• Distinguish between "wrong" and "unclear"
• Focus on substance over style
• Do not suggest solutions here (that's for shepherd)
• Rate severity honestly - don't inflate or deflate
• When multiple perspectives flag the same issue, report it once in the integrated summary with all relevant perspectives noted
• Always save output to analyze_output.md as specified above