Peer Review Skill

Description

Conduct thorough academic peer reviews with structured, constructive feedback.

Tools Used

• load_pdf - Load PDF papers in the workspace viewer (auto-switches to PDF reader)
• arxiv_to_prompt - Convert arXiv papers to readable text for analysis
• update_notes - Write review reports to the Notes editor

Capabilities

Paper Analysis

• Extract and summarize main contributions
• Identify methodology and approach
• Evaluate experimental design
• Assess writing quality

Comparative Analysis

• Find related prior work
• Identify novelty claims
• Check citation completeness
• Verify originality

Feedback Generation

• Structured review reports
• Specific, actionable comments
• Line-by-line annotations
• Summary recommendations

Review Process

Phase 1: Initial Read

1. Read abstract and introduction
2. Understand claimed contributions
3. Skim methodology and results
4. Form initial impression

Phase 2: Detailed Analysis

1. Carefully read methodology
2. Evaluate experimental design
3. Check result validity
4. Assess reproducibility

Phase 3: Comparative Check

1. Search for related work
2. Verify novelty claims
3. Check citation coverage
4. Identify missing references

Phase 4: Report Writing

1. Summarize paper
2. List strengths
3. Detail weaknesses
4. Provide recommendations

Feedback Templates

Major Issue

[MAJOR] Section X, Page Y
Issue: [Clear description]
Impact: [Why this matters]
Suggestion: [How to address]

Minor Issue

[MINOR] Section X
Observation: [Description]
Suggestion: [Improvement]

Question

[QUESTION] Section X
The authors claim [X]. Could you clarify:
- [Specific question]
- [Related concern]

Review Report Structure

# Paper Review: [Title]

## Summary
[2-3 sentence overview]

## Strengths
1. [Strength with explanation]
2. [Strength with explanation]

## Weaknesses
### Major Issues
1. [Issue with suggestion]

### Minor Issues
1. [Issue with suggestion]

## Questions for Authors
1. [Question]

## Detailed Comments
[Section-by-section feedback]

## Recommendation
[ ] Accept
[ ] Minor Revision
[ ] Major Revision
[ ] Reject

Confidence: [1-5]

Tool Examples

Load and read an arXiv paper for review

arxiv_to_prompt arxiv_id="2303.08774"

Load a PDF submission

load_pdf source="/workspace/papers/submission.pdf"

Write the review report

update_notes content="<h1>Paper Review: [Title]</h1><h2>Summary</h2><p>...</p><h2>Strengths</h2><ol><li>...</li></ol><h2>Weaknesses</h2><h3>Major Issues</h3><ol><li>...</li></ol><h2>Recommendation</h2><p>Minor Revision — Confidence: 4/5</p>"

Best Practices

1. Be Constructive: Focus on improvement, not criticism
2. Be Specific: Point to exact locations and issues
3. Be Fair: Acknowledge strengths before weaknesses
4. Verify completeness: Before writing the final report, confirm you have reviewed all major sections and identified at least 3 strengths