adversarial-peer-review

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

Use when reviewing academic papers, proposals, experiments, claims, related work, novelty, methodology, or manuscripts as a severe but fair peer reviewer before submission.

3installs

Sourcevincenzoimp/academic-research-skills

Added on2026-05-20

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add vincenzoimp/academic-research-skills adversarial-peer-review

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Adversarial Peer Review

Review as a serious top-venue reviewer: skeptical, specific, evidence-based, and fair. The goal is to find the objections that would block acceptance before external reviewers do.

Read First

```
references/peer-review-policy.md
```
```
references/claim-audit.md
```

references/cs-methodology-evaluation-policy.md

Workflow

Identify target venue or assumed review culture.
Read the paper/proposal/manuscript claim-first: abstract, introduction, contributions, experiments, related work, conclusion.
List acceptance-critical claims and what evidence supports each.
Attack novelty, significance, correctness, methodology, clarity, ethics, and reproducibility.
Separate fatal flaws, major weaknesses, minor issues, and presentation issues.
Produce reviewer-style scores only when the user asks or the venue requires them.

Save reusable findings in

reports/reviews/

or

wiki/templates/reviewer-concern-page.md

derived pages.

Review Standard

Every major criticism should include:

exact claim or section
why it matters
evidence from paper/source/run
what would fix or weaken the concern

Do Not

Be performatively harsh without evidence.
Suggest impossible experiments without labeling them as optional.
Let writing polish hide methodological weakness.
Accept citation volume as proof of related-work coverage.