import live www.sillylaird.ca webrootHEADmain

4 files changed, 184 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..28176d8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+---
+name: paper-self-review
+description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "review paper quality", "check paper completeness", "validate paper structure", "self-review before submission", or mentions systematic paper quality checking. Provides comprehensive quality assurance checklist for academic papers.
+version: 0.1.0
+---
+
+# Paper Self-Review
+
+A systematic paper quality checking tool that helps researchers conduct comprehensive self-review before submission.
+
+## Core Features
+
+### 1. Structure Review
+
+Check whether all sections of the paper are complete and conform to academic standards:
+- Does the Abstract include problem, method, results, and contributions?
+- Does the Introduction clearly articulate research motivation and background?
+- Is the Method detailed enough to be reproducible?
+- Do the Results sufficiently support the conclusions?
+- Does the Discussion address limitations and future work?
+
+### 2. Logic Consistency Check
+
+Verify the logical coherence of the paper:
+- Do research questions match the methodology?
+- Does the experimental design support the research hypotheses?
+- Are result interpretations reasonable?
+- Are conclusions supported by evidence?
+
+### 3. Citation Completeness
+
+Check the completeness and accuracy of citations:
+- Are all citations present in the references?
+- Is the reference format consistent?
+- Are key related works cited?
+- Do citations accurately reflect the original content?
+
+### 4. Figure/Table Quality
+
+Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of figures and tables:
+- Do all figures/tables have clear titles and captions?
+- Do figures/tables support the text narrative?
+- Are figures/tables clear and readable?
+- Do formats comply with journal/conference requirements?
+
+### 5. Writing Clarity
+
+Check writing clarity and readability:
+- Is the language concise and clear?
+- Is technical terminology used appropriately?
+- Are sentence structures clear?
+- Is paragraph organization logical?
+
+## Quality Checklist
+
+Use this checklist for systematic paper self-review:
+
+```
+Paper Quality Checklist:
+- [ ] Abstract includes problem, method, results, contributions
+- [ ] Introduction clearly states research motivation
+- [ ] Method is reproducible
+- [ ] Results support conclusions
+- [ ] Discussion addresses limitations
+- [ ] All figures/tables have captions
+- [ ] Citations are complete and accurate
+```
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use this skill in the following scenarios:
+
+- **Pre-submission check** - Final review before submitting to a journal or conference
+- **After first draft** - Systematic review after completing the first draft
+- **Before advisor review** - Self-check before requesting advisor feedback to improve quality
+- **Post-revision verification** - After revising based on reviewer comments, verify all issues are addressed
+- **Collaborator review** - Quality check before sending to collaborators
+
+## Review Process
+
+Follow these steps for systematic paper review:
+
+### Step 1: Structure Review
+Start with the overall structure, checking if all sections are complete and logically coherent.
+
+### Step 2: Content Review
+Dive into each section, checking content accuracy and completeness.
+
+### Step 3: Citation Check
+Verify the completeness and accuracy of all citations.
+
+### Step 4: Figure/Table Review
+Check the quality and captions of all figures and tables.
+
+### Step 5: Writing Quality
+Review language expression and writing clarity.
+
+### Step 6: Final Checklist
+Use the quality checklist for final verification.
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### Review Timing
+- **Spaced review** - Wait 1-2 days after completing the draft before reviewing to maintain objectivity
+- **Multiple rounds** - Conduct multiple review rounds, focusing on different aspects each time
+- **Print review** - Print a hard copy for review; issues are easier to spot on paper
+
+### Review Techniques
+- **Reverse reading** - Read from conclusion backwards to check logical coherence
+- **Read aloud** - Reading the paper aloud helps identify language issues
+- **Reviewer perspective** - Assume you are a reviewer and read critically
+
+### Common Issues
+- Abstract too brief or too verbose
+- Introduction lacks clear research question statement
+- Method lacks sufficient detail for reproduction
+- Results lack statistical significance tests
+- Discussion doesn't address research limitations
+- Figures/tables lack clear titles and captions
+- Inconsistent citation formatting
+
+## Summary
+
+The Paper Self-Review skill provides a systematic paper quality checking process, helping researchers identify and resolve issues before submission, improving paper quality and acceptance rates.
+
+
+## Reference Files
+
+Load only what is needed:
+- `references/SECTION-CHECKLIST.md` - section-by-section review questions
+- `references/FINAL-VERDICT.md` - how to summarize submission readiness and blocking issues
+- `examples/example-self-review.md` - example review output
diff --git a/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/examples/example-self-review.md b/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/examples/example-self-review.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..961a9ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/examples/example-self-review.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Paper Self-Review Example
+
+## Verdict
+- needs moderate revision
+
+## Blocking issues
+1. Main claim is not tied to a statistical test.
+2. Baseline comparison is missing one obvious prior system.
+3. Figure 2 caption does not explain the metric.
+
+## Non-blocking issues
+- abstract can quantify the gain more clearly
+- discussion should name one concrete limitation
diff --git a/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/references/FINAL-VERDICT.md b/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/references/FINAL-VERDICT.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..368f1b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/references/FINAL-VERDICT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+# Final Verdict
+
+## Verdict buckets
+- `ready with minor edits`
+- `needs moderate revision`
+- `not ready for submission`
+
+## Always report
+- top 3 blocking issues
+- top 3 polish issues
+- missing evidence or missing citations
+- figure/table risks
diff --git a/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/references/SECTION-CHECKLIST.md b/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/references/SECTION-CHECKLIST.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..239925d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/paper-self-review/references/SECTION-CHECKLIST.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Section Checklist
+
+## Abstract
+- problem clear
+- method identifiable
+- main result quantified
+- contribution stated
+
+## Introduction
+- research gap explicit
+- question or hypothesis visible
+- contribution list concrete
+
+## Method
+- enough detail to reproduce
+- assumptions named
+- key design choices justified
+
+## Results
+- numbers support claims
+- uncertainty / significance reported when needed
+- baselines and ablations are interpretable
+
+## Discussion
+- limitations named
+- failure cases acknowledged
+- next-step implications are reasonable