version: "1.0.0" name: academic-paper-review description: "Structured peer-review of academic papers." allowed-tools:

• browse_page
• web_search
• write_file
• present_files

enabled: true related-skills: [arxiv, systematic-literature-review, deep-research] license: MIT author: Adapted from deer-flow (Bytedance, MIT)

Academic Paper Review

Overview

Produces structured, peer-review-quality analyses of academic papers. Follows review standards used by top-tier venues (NeurIPS, ICML, ACL, Nature, IEEE) to provide rigorous, constructive, and balanced assessments.

Covers summary, strengths, weaknesses, methodology assessment, contribution evaluation, literature positioning, and actionable recommendations — all grounded in evidence from the paper itself.

When to Use

• User provides a paper URL (arXiv, DOI, conference proceedings)
• User asks to "review", "analyze", "critique", "assess", or "summarize" a

research paper

• User wants to understand strengths and weaknesses of a study
• User requests a peer-review-style evaluation

Review Methodology

Phase 1: Paper Comprehension

Step 1.1: Identify Paper Metadata

Extract: Title, Authors, Venue/Status, Year, Domain, Paper Type (Empirical / Theoretical / Survey / Systems / Position).

Step 1.2: Deep Reading Pass

Read the paper systematically using browse_page:

1. Abstract & Introduction — Identify claimed contributions and motivation
2. Related Work — Note how authors position relative to prior art
3. Methodology — Understand the proposed approach in detail
4. Experiments / Results — Examine datasets, baselines, metrics, outcomes
5. Discussion & Limitations — Note self-identified limitations
6. Conclusion — Compare concluded claims against actual evidence

Step 1.3: Key Claims Extraction

List the paper's main claims explicitly:

Claim 1: [Specific claim]
Evidence: [What evidence supports this]
Strength: [Strong / Moderate / Weak]

Phase 2: Critical Analysis

Step 2.1: Literature Context Search

Use web_search to understand the research landscape:

"[paper topic] state of the art [current year]"
"[key method name] comparison benchmark"
"[specific technique] limitations criticism"

Use browse_page on key related papers or surveys.

Step 2.2: Methodology Assessment

Step 2.3: Contribution Significance

Phase 3: Review Synthesis

Produce the final review using this template:

# Paper Review: [Paper Title]
 
## Paper Metadata
-**Authors**: [Author list]
-**Venue**: [Publication venue or preprint server]
-**Year**: [Year]
-**Domain**: [Research field]
-**Paper Type**: [Empirical / Theoretical / Survey / Systems / Position]
 
## Executive Summary
[2-3 paragraph summary of core contribution, approach, and main findings.
State overall assessment upfront.]
 
## Summary of Contributions
1.[First claimed contribution]
2.[Second claimed contribution]
 
## Strengths
### S1: [Concise strength title]
[Detailed explanation with specific references to sections, figures, tables.]
 
### S2: [Concise strength title]
[...]
 
## Weaknesses
### W1: [Concise weakness title]
[Detailed explanation. Explain impact. Suggest how to address.]
 
### W2: [Concise weakness title]
[...]
 
## Methodology Assessment
| Criterion | Rating (1-5) | Assessment |
|-----------|:---:|------------|
| Soundness | X | [Brief justification] |
| Novelty | X | [Brief justification] |
| Reproducibility | X | [Brief justification] |
| Experimental Design | X | [Brief justification] |
| Statistical Rigor | X | [Brief justification] |
| Scalability | X | [Brief justification] |
 
## Questions for the Authors
1.[Specific question]
2.[Question about methodology choices]
 
## Literature Positioning
[How does this work relate to current state of the art? Key related works cited?]
 
## Recommendations
**Overall Assessment**: [Accept / Weak Accept / Borderline / Weak Reject / Reject]
**Confidence**: [High / Medium / Low]
**Contribution Level**: [Landmark / Significant / Moderate / Marginal / Below threshold]
 
### Actionable Suggestions for Improvement
1.[Specific, constructive suggestion]
2.[Specific, constructive suggestion]

Review Principles

• Always suggest how to fix it — Don't just point out problems; propose solutions
• Give credit where due — Acknowledge genuine contributions even in flawed papers
• Be specific — Reference exact sections, equations, figures, tables
• Separate minor from major — Distinguish fatal flaws from fixable issues

Objectivity Standards

• ❌ "This paper is poorly written" (vague, unhelpful)
• ✅ "Section 3.2 introduces notation X without formal definition, making the

proof in Theorem 1 difficult to follow. Consider adding a notation table." (specific, actionable)

Adaptation by Paper Type

Common Pitfalls

• ❌ Reviewing the paper you wish was written instead of the paper submitted
• ❌ Demanding additional experiments that are unreasonable in scope
• ❌ Penalizing the paper for not solving a different problem
• ❌ Being overly influenced by writing quality versus technical contribution
• ❌ Providing only a summary without critical analysis

Quality Checklist

• [ ] Paper read completely (not just abstract and introduction)
• [ ] All major claims identified and evaluated against evidence
• [ ] At least 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses with specific references
• [ ] Methodology assessment table complete with ratings and justifications
• [ ] Literature search conducted to contextualize the contribution
• [ ] Recommendations are actionable and constructive
• [ ] Review tone is professional and respectful

Output

• Output the complete review in Markdown
• Save to .poirot/outputs/review-{paper-topic}.md via write_file
• Present to user via present_files