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.
9installs
Added on
NPX Install
npx skill4agent add vincenzoimp/academic-research-skills adversarial-peer-reviewTags
Translated version includes tags in frontmatterSKILL.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.mdreferences/claim-audit.mdreferences/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 or
reports/reviews/derived pages.wiki/templates/reviewer-concern-page.md
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.