<< All versions

Skill v1.0.0

currentAutomated scan100/100
zhihaoairobotic/clawphd/ai-review
──Details
PublishedOctober 23, 2026 at 07:20 AM
Content Hashsha256:b8cd23b2df506371...
Git SHAb3bb1ed934c2
──Files
Files (1 file, 3.4 KB)
SKILL.md3.4 KBactive
SKILL.md · 105 lines · 3.4 KB

version: "1.0.0" name: ai-review description: "AI paper reviewer. Use when the user says 'review my paper', 'help me review this paper', '审稿', 'give me feedback on my paper', 'check my manuscript', 'evaluate this paper for NeurIPS/ICLR/EuroSys'. Accepts PDF files and produces structured narrative reviews with venue-specific dimensional scores and Accept/Reject recommendation." metadata: {"clawphd":{"emoji":"📝"}}

When to use

  • "Review my paper at /path/to/paper.pdf"
  • "Help me prepare my NeurIPS submission — review this draft"
  • "给我审一下这篇论文"
  • "Check if this paper is ready for ICLR submission"
  • "Give me peer-review style feedback on this manuscript"
  • "Evaluate this paper for EuroSys, tell me the scores"

Tool

paper_review(pdf_path, venue="NeurIPS", mode="sot", num_reflections=1)

Parameters

ParameterTypeRequiredDescription
pdf_pathstringyesAbsolute path to the paper PDF
venuestringnoTarget conference: NeurIPS / ICLR / ICML / EuroSys / OSDI / SOSP / CVPR / ICCV / General (default: General)
modestringnosot = Strength-of-Thought multi-pass (default, highest quality); pure = single-pass (faster); vlm = send page images to vision model (evaluates figures/typesetting)
num_reflectionsintegernoSelf-reflection iterations (default: 1)

Return value

json
{
  "status": "ok",
  "output_path": "/home/user/.clawphd/workspace/outputs/paper_review/my_paper/review.md",
  "venue": "NeurIPS",
  "decision": "Accept",
  "overall_score": 7,
  "scores": {
    "Originality": 3,
    "Quality": 3,
    "Clarity": 4,
    "Significance": 3,
    "Soundness": 3,
    "Presentation": 4,
    "Contribution": 3,
    "overall": 7,
    "confidence": 4,
    "decision": "Accept",
    "score_rationale": "Solid contribution with strong experiments and clear presentation, minor novelty concerns."
  },
  "warnings": []
}

Scoring rubric

Scores follow real conference review forms:

VenueDimensionsOverall scale
NeurIPS / ICLR / ICMLOriginality, Quality, Clarity, Significance, Soundness, Presentation, Contribution (each 1–4)1–10
EuroSys / OSDI / SOSPNovelty, Systems_Contribution, Evaluation_Rigor, Clarity (each 1–4)1–10
CVPR / ICCVTechnical_Novelty, Soundness, Experiments, Presentation, Impact (each 1–4)1–6

Rubric source: SakanaAI/AI-Scientist (12.5k stars) — NeurIPS official review form.

Example conversation

User: 帮我把这篇论文按照 NeurIPS 标准审一下：/home/user/papers/my_draft.pdf

Agent: [calls paper_review with pdf_path="/home/user/papers/my_draft.pdf", venue="NeurIPS", mode="sot"] → Review saved to ~/.clawphd/workspace/outputs/paper_review/my_draft/review.md → Decision: Accept | Overall: 7/10 → Originality: 3/4 | Soundness: 3/4 | Contribution: 3/4

Output layout

outputs/paper_review/<paper_stem>/
├── review.md    # narrative review (6 sections) + score table
└── meta.json    # venue, mode, scores, elapsed time

review.md structure

# Paper Review: <title>
> Venue: NeurIPS | Mode: sot | Generated: 2026-03-22
 
## Synopsis
## Summary of Review
## Strengths
## Weaknesses
## Suggestions for Improvement
## References
 
---
 
## Scores (NeurIPS)
| Dimension | Score |
...
**Decision: Accept**
All versions