diff options
Diffstat (limited to '.agents/skills/paper-self-review')
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 |