Loading...
Loading...
Found 25 Skills
Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review.
Guides self-review of YOUR OWN academic paper before submission with adversarial stress-testing. Core method: 5-aspect checklist (contribution sufficiency, writing clarity, results quality, testing completeness, method design), counterintuitive protocol (reject-first simulation, delete unsupported claims, score trust, promote limitations, attack novelty), reverse-outlining, and figure/table quality checks. Use when: user wants to self-review or self-check their own paper draft before submission, stress-test their claims, prepare for reviewer criticism, or mentions 'self-review', 'check my draft', 'is my paper ready'. Do NOT use for writing a peer review of someone else's paper, and do NOT use after receiving actual reviews (use paper-rebuttal instead).
Use this skill when the user requests to review, analyze, critique, or summarize academic papers, research articles, preprints, or scientific publications. Supports comprehensive structured reviews covering methodology assessment, contribution evaluation, literature positioning, and constructive feedback generation. Trigger on queries involving paper URLs, uploaded PDFs, arXiv links, or requests like "review this paper", "analyze this research", "summarize this study", or "write a peer review".
Simulate target-conference reviewers for an ML/AI paper before submission. Use this skill whenever the user wants a reviewer-style critique, predicted scores, likely reject reasons, rebuttal risks, area-chair style meta-review, adversarial Reviewer 2 feedback, or venue-specific pre-review for conferences such as NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR, ACL, EMNLP, or similar venues. This skill should dynamically inspect reviewer guidelines, example reviews, accepted papers, and project evidence when available.
Use this skill for "review this paper", "review this manuscript", "peer review", "review my paper", "critique this manuscript", "review this submission", "give me feedback on my paper", "check my methods", "review my statistics", "review as a peer reviewer", "evaluate this manuscript", "review this PDF", or mentions manuscript review, peer review, paper critique, or methodological review.
Own assessment-only manuscript deliverables without rewriting: full scientific review, scoring, reviewer reports, issue diagnosis, AC/meta-review, readiness judgment, writing/format review, and cross-version comparison. Use for full review, scientific review, do not rewrite, assessment-only, paper review, score drift, moving-target review, 完整审稿, 不要改写, 模拟审稿, 论文评分, 版本对比, 复审一致性, 写作评审, LaTeX检查. Requests for revised or polished prose, including rewrite based on reviews with no new review, belong to ccf-paper-writer; rebuttals belong to ccf-rebuttal-writer; visual/table styling belongs to ccf-visual-composer.
Use this skill when the user wants a systematic literature review, survey, or synthesis across multiple academic papers on a topic. Also covers annotated bibliographies and cross-paper comparisons. Searches arXiv and outputs reports in APA, IEEE, or BibTeX format. Not for single-paper tasks — use academic-paper-review for reviewing one paper.
Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 9-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow.
Guides pre-writing planning for academic papers with 4 structured steps: story design (task-challenge-insight-contribution-advantage), experiment planning (comparisons + ablations), figure design (pipeline + teaser), and 4-week timeline management. Includes counterintuitive planning tactics (write a mock rejection letter to identify weaknesses before writing, narrow before broad claims, design ablations first). Use when: user wants to plan a paper before writing, design story/contributions, plan experiments, create figure sketches, set a writing timeline, or write a pre-emptive rejection letter for planning purposes. Do NOT use for actual writing (use paper-writing), running experiments (use experiment-pipeline), self-reviewing a finished draft (use paper-review), or finding research problems (use research-ideation).
Guides writing effective rebuttals after receiving peer review feedback. Covers review diagnosis (score-driven color-coding), response strategy (champion identification, common-theme consolidation), tactical writing (18 rules), and counterintuitive rebuttal principles. Use when: user received reviewer scores/comments, needs to write a rebuttal or author response, wants to respond to specific criticism (e.g. 'limited novelty', 'missing baselines'), mentions 'rebuttal', 'reviewer comments', 'author response', or 'respond to reviewers'. Do NOT use for pre-submission self-review (use paper-review instead).
Guides writing academic papers section by section using an 11-step workflow with LaTeX templates and counterintuitive writing tactics. Covers Abstract, Introduction, Method, Experiments, Related Work, Conclusion, and Supplementary. Use when: user asks to write or draft a paper section, needs LaTeX templates, wants to improve academic writing quality, optimize novelty framing, or mentions 'write introduction', 'draft method', 'paper writing'. Do NOT use for pre-submission review (use paper-review), experiment execution (use experiment-pipeline), or paper planning/story design (use paper-planning).
Critiques ML conference papers with reviewer-style feedback. Use when users want to anticipate reviewer concerns, identify weaknesses, check claim-evidence gaps, or find missing citations.