git:20260715.9c5b5aa to git:20260727.8247c94

10 added, 6 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: paper-review-panel

- description: Use when conducting a mock top-conference review, reviewer-style audit, readiness assessment, or accept/reject risk analysis for a research paper. Synthesizes reviewer-style concerns for venues such as CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, ICLR, NeurIPS, and AAAI without editing the manuscript.

+ description: Use when independently reviewing a research-paper draft before submission, running a mock top-conference panel, assessing readiness or accept/reject risk, or predicting reviewer concerns for venues such as CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, ICLR, NeurIPS, and AAAI. Does not draft or audit author responses after official reviews arrive.

license: MIT

---

# Paper Review Panel

## Core Rule

- Review by default. Do not edit the paper, mutate LaTeX, change figures, rerun

- experiments, or patch files unless the user separately asks for implementation.

- The output is an official-review-style synthesis plus compact revision

- priorities.

+ This skill owns pre-submission paper review and readiness assessment. Review by

+ default. Do not edit the paper, mutate LaTeX, change figures, rerun experiments,

+ or patch files unless the user separately asks for implementation. The output

+ is an official-review-style synthesis plus compact revision priorities.

+ Once official reviews arrive, stop using this skill as the workflow owner. Use

+ `$rebuttal-response-skills` for exact concern mapping, evidence integration,

+ author-response drafting, and response audits.

## Workflow

1. Ground the review in artifacts.

- Prefer the compiled PDF first when available; inspect layout, figures,

tables, appendix, and references as a reviewer would see them.

- Read the source text, bibliography, figure/table sources, logs, or result

artifacts only as needed to verify claims and locate concrete anchors.

- Use `$research-evidence` for citation/reference sanity checks or literature

positioning when a review finding depends on external evidence.

- For novelty, related-work, score-prediction, reviewer-risk,

- rebuttal-readiness, or final-submission reviews, run a recent-literature

+ submission-readiness, or final-submission reviews, run a recent-literature

audit through `$research-evidence` before finalizing novelty or acceptance

risk. Do not require this extra pass for casual local or prose-only reviews

unless novelty or missing citations are part of the ask.

- If that audit is incomplete or source coverage is weak, state the coverage

limit before assigning novelty confidence or acceptance risk.

- If only a section is provided, label the result as a partial review and do

not score the full paper as if all sections were available.

2. Apply the three-reviewer lens in the main review.

- Reviewer 1: contribution, novelty, positioning, motivation, venue fit.

- Reviewer 2: method, technical correctness, experiments, metrics, evidence.

- Reviewer 3: writing, figures, tables, consistency, reproducibility,

appendix, reviewer readability.

- Read `references/reviewer-roles.md` for detailed role prompts.

3. Synthesize rather than concatenate.

- Do not list reviewer lenses separately unless that helps diagnose the

paper's risks.

- Judge each concern independently: valid issue, clarity-induced

misunderstanding, unsupported or incorrect reviewer claim, or optional

polish.

- Preserve concrete anchors such as section, page, table, figure, equation,

appendix item, or source location whenever available.

4. Run a complexity and readability audit.

- Check whether a reviewer can identify the central claim and its main table

before encountering secondary ablations or diagnostics.

- Require every non-standard metric and delta to define its measured

quantity, aggregation population, unit, direction, and reference.

- Treat duplicate terminology, opaque metric names, and diagnostic overload

as acceptance risks when they make the evidence harder to verify.

5. Report in official-review style.

- Use English by default.

- Use venue-aware scoring when the venue is known. If unknown, use

`Overall score 1-10` and `Confidence 1-5`.

- End with score, confidence, acceptance risk, and compact revision

priorities.

- Read `references/output-format.md` before drafting the final synthesis.

## Review Standards

- Treat unsupported claims, weak baselines, missing ablations, protocol leakage,

metric ambiguity, and inconsistent appendix/main-paper numbers as high-risk

issues.

- Do not mechanically require repeated training seeds for expensive tasks.

Accept single-run training when comparisons use the same budget, evaluation,

and checkpoint-selection policy; request repeated seeds only when variance

could change a central claim, the margin is small, runs are inexpensive, or

the venue requires them.

- In work-in-progress reviews, treat `--` cells as structure only and do not

credit them as evidence. In submission-readiness reviews, report unresolved

placeholders as incomplete evidence and verify that no result claim depends

on them.

- For dataset and benchmark papers, separate dataset contribution, protocol

validity, reference baseline strength, and evidence that the benchmark tests

the claimed capability.

- For method papers, separate novelty, technical correctness, implementation

plausibility, ablation quality, and comparison fairness.

- Do not fabricate citations or assume experiments exist. If evidence is

missing, mark the concern as a risk or requested evidence.

- For high-risk novelty or readiness judgments, do not rely on memory or the

paper's current bibliography alone. Use `$research-evidence` to test direct

and adjacent recent work, terminology variants, and source-coverage limits.

- If the literature check is partial, make the score or risk estimate

conditional on that search coverage instead of presenting it as final.

- If a novelty, related-work, or citation-authenticity concern remains

uncertain after checking, report the uncertainty as reviewer risk rather than

treating the concern as proven.

- Read `references/review-checklist.md` for the full audit checklist.

## Reference Routing

- Read `references/reviewer-roles.md` for role-specific prompts and review

lenses.

- Read `references/output-format.md` before writing the final review.

- Read `references/review-checklist.md` for deep or high-stakes readiness

audits.