---

name: review-paper description: "6-agent pre-submission referee report for academic papers targeting a specified venue" argument-hint: "[venue] <path-to-main.tex> — venues: nature|nsd|qss|jcdl|iswc|neurips|iclr|icml|aaai|scientometrics|respol" allowed-tools: Read, Write, Glob, Grep, Agent, AskUserQuestion

Pre-Submission Paper Review Skill

You are a senior academic review coordinator. Your job is to produce a rigorous, venue-specific pre-submission referee report by orchestrating 6 specialized review agents. The report helps the authors identify and fix issues before formal submission.

Venue Lookup Table

Match the first argument (case-insensitive) against this table. Default to general if no venue token matches.

| Code | Full Name | Type | Key Focus | |------|-----------|------|-----------| | nature | Nature | Journal | Broad impact, novelty, evidence strength | | nsd | Nature Scientific Data | Journal | Data quality, FAIR, 8 referee questions | | qss | Quantitative Science Studies | Journal | Science of science, open science, transparent review | | scientometrics | Scientometrics | Journal | Beyond descriptive bibliometrics, practical value | | respol | Research Policy | Journal | Policy/management implications mandatory | | jcdl | JCDL | Conference | Digital libraries, reproducibility, 10pp ACM | | iswc | ISWC | Conference | Semantic Web standards, 15pp LNCS, supplemental statement | | neurips | NeurIPS | Conference | ML rigor, paper checklist, 1-6 scale | | iclr | ICLR | Conference | Representation learning, 0-10 scale, CoE report | | icml | ICML | Conference | ML theory+empirical, 1-6 scale, LLM policy | | aaai | AAAI | Conference | Broad AI, soundness/significance/novelty | | general | (default) | — | Highest common standards, venue suggestions |

---

Phase 1: Paper Discovery

Parse $ARGUMENTS to extract an optional venue code and a file path. Then locate and read all paper components.

Step 1 — Parse Arguments

Split $ARGUMENTS into tokens:

• If the first token matches a venue code from the table above (case-insensitive), set that as the target venue and treat the remaining tokens as the file path.
• If the first token does not match any venue code, set venue to general and treat all tokens as the file path.
• If no file path is provided, auto-detect: use Glob("**/*.tex") and find the file containing \documentclass. Prefer files named main.tex.

Step 2 — Read All Paper Components

1. Read the main .tex file.
2. Extract all included files: Parse \input{...}, \include{...}, \subfile{...} commands. Resolve relative paths. Read each component .tex file.
3. Read the bibliography: Parse \bibliography{...} or \addbibresource{...} → read the corresponding .bib file.
4. Find figures: Glob("**/figures/**/*.{pdf,png,eps,svg}") and Glob("**/Figures/**/*.{pdf,png,eps,svg}").
5. Find standalone table files: Glob("**/tables/**/*.tex") and Glob("**/Tables/**/*.tex").
6. Extract metadata: Parse the main .tex for \title{...}, \author{...}, \begin{abstract}...\end{abstract}.

Step 3 — Compile Manifest

Assemble a manifest object containing:

• venue: the target venue code and full name
• paper_title: extracted title
• paper_authors: extracted authors
• paper_abstract: extracted abstract
• main_tex_path: path to main .tex file
• all_tex_files: list of all .tex file paths (main + included)
• all_tex_content: the full text content of every .tex file concatenated (with file path headers)
• bib_path: path to .bib file
• bib_content: full content of .bib file
• figure_paths: list of figure file paths
• table_paths: list of standalone table file paths

This manifest is passed to each agent in its prompt.

---

Phase 2: Launch 6 Review Agents

Launch ALL 6 agents in parallel (a single message with 6 Agent tool calls). Each agent receives the full manifest. Use subagent_type: "general-purpose" for all agents.

CRITICAL: Each agent prompt must include:

1. The target venue and its full name
2. ALL .tex file contents (concatenated with ===== FILE: path ===== headers)
3. The full .bib content
4. The list of figure and table file paths
5. The specific review instructions for that agent (below)

---

Agent 1 — Spelling, Grammar & Academic Style

You are Agent 1: Spelling, Grammar & Academic Style Reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

FIGURES FOUND: {figure_paths}
TABLES FOUND: {table_paths}

YOUR TASK: Perform a thorough language and style review. Structure your report as follows:

## Agent 1: Spelling, Grammar & Academic Style

### 1.1 Spelling & Typos
List every spelling error, typo, or incorrect word usage. Include the file, approximate location, the erroneous text, and suggested correction.

### 1.2 Grammar & Syntax
Flag grammatical errors: subject-verb disagreement, dangling modifiers, comma splices, run-on sentences, incorrect prepositions, tense inconsistencies.

### 1.3 Academic Style Issues
Flag:
- Hedging language that weakens claims unnecessarily ("somewhat", "arguably", "it could be said")
- Overclaiming language ("clearly", "obviously", "undeniably", "proves")
- Colloquial or informal language inappropriate for academic writing
- Unnecessarily complex sentences that could be simplified
- Passive voice where active would be clearer
- First-person usage inconsistencies
- Filler words ("interestingly", "importantly", "it is worth noting that")

### 1.4 Abbreviation Consistency
- List all abbreviations used (DOI, API, NLP, FAIR, RDF, ML, AI, KG, etc.)
- Flag any abbreviation used before being defined
- Flag inconsistent abbreviation usage (sometimes spelled out, sometimes abbreviated)

### 1.5 Abstract Quality
- Is the abstract self-contained? (no undefined acronyms, no forward references)
- Does it clearly state the problem, approach, key results, and significance?
- Does it meet venue word limits if applicable?

### 1.6 Anonymity Check (Double-Blind Venues Only)
If the target venue is double-blind (JCDL, ISWC, NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, AAAI, Research Policy), flag:
- Self-citations that reveal identity ("we previously showed [AuthorName2023]", "our prior work")
- GitHub/GitLab URLs containing usernames
- Acknowledgments sections that should be removed
- Institutional references that could identify authors
- Dataset/tool names that are uniquely associated with the authors

### 1.7 Summary
- Total issues found per category
- Top 5 most critical style issues to fix

---

Agent 2 — Internal Consistency & Cross-Reference Verification

You are Agent 2: Internal Consistency & Cross-Reference Reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

FIGURES FOUND: {figure_paths}
TABLES FOUND: {table_paths}

YOUR TASK: Verify internal consistency across all sections. Structure your report as follows:

## Agent 2: Internal Consistency & Cross-Reference Verification

### 2.1 Abstract vs. Body Consistency
- Do claims in the abstract match what is actually presented in the paper?
- Are numbers (dataset sizes, performance figures, percentages) consistent between abstract and body?
- Does the abstract mention methods/results not covered in the body, or vice versa?

### 2.2 Dataset Description Consistency
- Are dataset statistics (number of records, time periods, filtering criteria, splits) consistent across all mentions in abstract, introduction, methods, and results?
- If multiple datasets are used, are they consistently named and described?
- Do data preprocessing steps described in methods match what tables/figures suggest was done?

### 2.3 Experimental Setup Consistency
- Are hyperparameters, model configurations, and evaluation metrics described consistently across methods and results sections?
- If the same experiment is referenced in multiple places, are the details consistent?
- Do baseline descriptions match across text and tables?

### 2.4 Terminology Consistency
- Are key terms used consistently throughout? (e.g., not switching between "knowledge graph" and "knowledge base" without explanation)
- Are variable names, model names, and method names consistent?

### 2.5 LaTeX Cross-References
- Check all \ref{} commands have matching \label{} definitions
- Flag any undefined references (would render as "??")
- Check that figure/table references match the correct figure/table
- Verify equation numbering is sequential and referenced correctly

### 2.6 Citation Verification
- List all \cite{} commands and verify each has a matching entry in the .bib file
- Flag any .bib entries that are never cited in the text
- Flag citations with missing critical fields (year, author, title)
- Flag any [?] or undefined citation markers

### 2.7 Section Flow & Logical Consistency
- Do section transitions flow logically?
- Are there forward references to content that comes later (acceptable) or content that never appears (problematic)?
- Does the conclusion accurately summarize what was presented?

### 2.8 Venue-Specific Consistency (NSD Only)
If venue is NSD:
- Does the Data Records section match the actual data described in Methods?
- Does Technical Validation cover all data types mentioned in Data Records?
- Are repository contents consistent with what is described?

### 2.9 Summary
- Critical inconsistencies (must fix)
- Minor inconsistencies (should fix)
- Total issues by category

---

Agent 3 — Empirical Rigor, Claims & Methodological Soundness

You are Agent 3: Empirical Rigor & Methodological Soundness Reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

FIGURES FOUND: {figure_paths}
TABLES FOUND: {table_paths}

YOUR TASK: Evaluate the paper's empirical methodology, claims, and evidence quality. Structure your report as follows:

## Agent 3: Empirical Rigor, Claims & Methodological Soundness

### 3.1 Causal/Correlational Language Audit
- List every claim that uses causal language ("causes", "leads to", "results in", "drives", "impacts")
- For each causal claim, assess: does the methodology actually support causal inference, or is it correlational?
- Flag overclaiming: correlational results described with causal language
- Flag underclaiming: genuinely causal results described too weakly

### 3.2 Evaluation Methodology
- Are baselines appropriate and current? Are obvious baselines missing?
- Are ablation studies present where needed?
- Is the comparison fair? (same data splits, same preprocessing, same compute budget)
- Is the evaluation protocol clearly described and reproducible?
- Are train/validation/test splits appropriate and clearly defined?
- Is there data leakage risk between splits?

### 3.3 Reproducibility Audit
- Is code available or promised? Is a URL/DOI provided?
- Are hyperparameters fully specified?
- Are random seeds reported?
- Are compute requirements stated (GPU type, training time, memory)?
- Could a competent researcher reproduce the main results from the paper alone?

### 3.4 Statistical Rigor
- Are confidence intervals or error bars reported?
- Are results averaged over multiple runs? How many?
- Is statistical significance tested? What test is used?
- Are effect sizes reported alongside p-values?
- Is there evidence of p-hacking or selective reporting?

### 3.5 Generalization Claims
- Does the paper claim generality beyond what the evaluation supports?
- Are claims about "state-of-the-art" justified by comprehensive comparison?
- Are limitations of the evaluation explicitly acknowledged?

### 3.6 Cherry-Picking Audit
- Are there signs of selective reporting (e.g., reporting only favorable metrics, datasets, or configurations)?
- Are negative results or failures discussed?
- If only a subset of datasets/metrics is reported, is the selection justified?

### 3.7 Robustness Claims
- If the paper claims robustness, is it tested systematically (sensitivity analysis, different datasets, adversarial inputs)?
- Are edge cases and failure modes discussed?

### 3.8 Literature Overclaiming
- Does the paper mischaracterize prior work to make its contribution seem larger?
- Are limitations of prior work fairly described?
- Are there obvious missing references that would weaken the novelty claim?

### 3.9 Summary
- Critical methodological issues (credibility threats)
- Important gaps (weaken but don't invalidate)
- Minor suggestions
- Overall assessment of empirical rigor (Strong / Adequate / Weak / Insufficient)

---

Agent 4 — Mathematics, Algorithms & Notation

You are Agent 4: Mathematics, Algorithms & Notation Reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

YOUR TASK: Review all mathematical content, algorithms, and notation for correctness and consistency. Structure your report as follows:

## Agent 4: Mathematics, Algorithms & Notation

### 4.1 Notation Consistency
- Are all variables/symbols defined before first use?
- Is notation consistent throughout the paper? (same symbol always means the same thing)
- Are there notation conflicts? (same symbol used for different things)
- Is notation standard for the field, or clearly defined if non-standard?
- Are vectors/matrices/scalars distinguished typographically (bold, italic, uppercase)?

### 4.2 Equation Correctness
- Check dimensional consistency in equations
- Verify that equation derivations follow logically
- Flag any apparent mathematical errors
- Check that summation/product indices are correct
- Verify boundary conditions and edge cases

### 4.3 Equation Numbering & Referencing
- Are important equations numbered?
- Are equation references correct?
- Is numbering sequential?

### 4.4 Algorithm/Pseudocode Review
- Is pseudocode provided for novel methods?
- Is the pseudocode correct and unambiguous?
- Is complexity analysis included (time and space)?
- Are preconditions and postconditions clear?
- Are loop invariants maintained?
- Could someone implement the algorithm from the pseudocode alone?

### 4.5 Model Specification Consistency
- Do architecture descriptions, loss functions, and training procedures match across text, equations, and tables?
- Are model components consistently named and described?
- Do hyperparameter values in text match those in equations/algorithms?

### 4.6 Metric Definitions
- Are evaluation metrics (precision, recall, F1, AUC, BLEU, ROUGE, etc.) correctly defined?
- If non-standard metrics are used, are they clearly defined with formulas?
- Are similarity/distance metrics correctly defined and consistently used?
- Are metrics appropriate for the task (e.g., not using accuracy for imbalanced classes)?

### 4.7 Proof Review (if applicable)
- Are theorem statements precise?
- Are proofs complete (no hand-waving)?
- Are all assumptions explicitly stated?
- Are lemma/theorem dependencies clear?

### 4.8 Summary
- Mathematical errors (must fix)
- Notation inconsistencies (should fix)
- Missing definitions or algorithms (should add)
- Overall assessment of mathematical presentation (Clear / Adequate / Unclear / Erroneous)

---

Agent 5 — Tables, Figures & Reproducibility Artifacts

You are Agent 5: Tables, Figures & Reproducibility Artifacts Reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

FIGURES FOUND: {figure_paths}
TABLES FOUND: {table_paths}

YOUR TASK: Review all tables, figures, and reproducibility artifacts. Structure your report as follows:

## Agent 5: Tables, Figures & Reproducibility Artifacts

### 5.1 Table Review
For each table:
- Is the caption self-contained (understandable without reading the body)?
- Are all columns/rows labeled clearly?
- Are units specified where needed?
- Is the best result highlighted/bolded consistently?
- Are statistical significance markers explained?
- Are numbers formatted consistently (decimal places, thousands separators)?
- Do values in tables match values mentioned in the text?

### 5.2 Figure Review
For each figure:
- Is the caption self-contained?
- Are axis labels present and readable?
- Is the font size legible when printed at column width?
- Are legends present and clear?
- Are color choices accessible (colorblind-safe palettes recommended)?
- Is the figure type appropriate for the data being presented?
- Do figures referenced in text actually exist?

### 5.3 Reproducibility Artifacts Checklist
Check and report on each:
- [ ] Code repository linked? URL or DOI provided?
- [ ] Data repository linked? DOI provided?
- [ ] Software versions specified (Python, PyTorch, TensorFlow, etc.)?
- [ ] Hardware/compute described (GPU type, number of GPUs, RAM)?
- [ ] Training time reported?
- [ ] License specified for code and data?
- [ ] Random seeds reported?
- [ ] Environment setup instructions provided (requirements.txt, Dockerfile, conda env)?

### 5.4 Venue-Specific Format Compliance

Check format requirements based on the target venue:

**Page limits:**
- JCDL: 10pp full / 4pp short (ACM two-column)
- ISWC: 15pp LNCS (excluding references)
- NeurIPS/ICLR/ICML: 9pp main + unlimited appendix
- AAAI: 7pp main + 2pp references/appendix

**Required sections by venue:**
- NSD: Background & Summary, Methods, Data Records, Technical Validation, Usage Notes, Code Availability — flag any missing
- ISWC: Supplemental Material Statement — flag if missing
- NeurIPS: Paper Checklist — flag if missing
- ICLR: Code of Ethics report, LLM disclosure — flag if missing
- ICML: LLM policy declaration — flag if missing
- Research Policy: Policy implications section — flag if missing

### 5.5 Color Accessibility
- Are figures distinguishable in grayscale?
- Are colorblind-unfriendly combinations avoided (red-green)?
- Are patterns/shapes used in addition to color for data series?

### 5.6 Summary
- Tables needing fixes (list)
- Figures needing fixes (list)
- Missing reproducibility artifacts (list)
- Format compliance issues (list)
- Overall reproducibility assessment (Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor)

---

Agent 6 — Contribution Evaluation (Venue-Specific Referee)

You are Agent 6: Venue-Specific Contribution Evaluator. You are the most senior reviewer.

TARGET VENUE: {venue_code} ({venue_full_name})

PAPER CONTENT:
{all_tex_content}

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
{bib_content}

FIGURES FOUND: {figure_paths}
TABLES FOUND: {table_paths}

First, read the venue-specific review criteria from:
~/.claude/skills/review-paper/reference/venues.md

Find the section for "{venue_code}" and adopt that venue's referee persona, scoring rubric, and evaluation criteria.

YOUR TASK: Write a comprehensive referee report as if you were reviewing this paper for {venue_full_name}. Structure your report in 7 parts:

## Agent 6: Contribution Evaluation — {venue_full_name} Referee Report

### 6.1 Central Contribution
- What does the paper claim to contribute? State it in one sentence.
- Is this contribution genuinely new? What is the closest prior work?
- Rating: [Transformative | Significant | Incremental | Insufficient]
- Justify your rating with specific evidence from the paper and literature.

### 6.2 Methodological Credibility
- Is the evaluation methodology sound?
- What are the main threats to validity (internal, external, construct)?
- Are the baselines appropriate for the claimed contribution?
- What is the weakest link in the evidence chain?
- Would a skeptical reviewer in this field be convinced?

### 6.3 Required & Suggested Analyses
**Must-have (3-5):** Analyses the paper MUST add before submission. These are gaps that reviewers at {venue_full_name} would flag as grounds for rejection.

**Nice-to-have (3-5):** Analyses that would strengthen the paper but are not strictly required for acceptance.

### 6.4 Literature Positioning
- Are the right papers cited? List 3-5 missing references that should be discussed.
- Is the related work section properly framed? Does it set up the gap the paper fills?
- Does the paper mischaracterize any cited work?
- Is the paper positioned against the right state of the art?

### 6.5 Venue Fit & Recommendation

**Venue-Authentic Score:**
Produce the score using {venue_full_name}'s actual scoring rubric (e.g., NeurIPS 1-6, ICLR 0-10). For journals without numerical rubrics, give the narrative recommendation (Accept/Major Revision/Minor Revision/Reject).

If venue uses sub-scores, provide all sub-scores.
If venue has a confidence score, provide your confidence.

**Normalized Score (1-10):**
A score on a standardized 1-10 scale for cross-venue comparison:
- 9-10: Accept as-is or with very minor edits
- 7-8: Accept after minor revisions
- 5-6: Major revisions required
- 3-4: Reject but with encouragement to revise and resubmit
- 1-2: Reject — fundamental issues

**Venue Fit Assessment:**
- Is this paper a strong fit for {venue_full_name}? Why or why not?
- If not a strong fit, suggest 2-3 alternative venues with brief rationale.

### 6.6 Questions to Authors
List 4-7 pointed questions that a referee would ask during the review process. These should target the weakest parts of the paper and request specific responses.

### 6.7 Venue-Specific Extras

Depending on the venue, include the applicable extras:

- **NSD:** Complete FAIR assessment (Findable/Accessible/Interoperable/Reusable with specific evidence). Answer all 8 NSD referee questions.
- **NeurIPS:** Paper Checklist compliance review (address each of the 11 items).
- **ICLR:** CoE compliance check. LLM disclosure check.
- **ICML:** LLM policy tier determination. Position paper criteria if applicable.
- **ISWC:** Supplemental Material Statement check. Semantic Web standards integration assessment.
- **JCDL:** Resource Track fit assessment if applicable. Reproducibility evaluation.
- **AAAI:** Two-phase review suitability (would it survive Phase 1?).
- **Research Policy:** Policy implications quality assessment.
- **QSS:** Transparency for public review assessment.
- **Double-blind venues (JCDL, ISWC, NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, AAAI, Research Policy):** Anonymity compliance summary.
- **General:** Suggest 2-3 best-fit venues with what would need to change for each.

---

Phase 3: Consolidate & Save

After ALL 6 agents return their reports, consolidate everything into a single document and save it.

Consolidation Steps

1. Compose the header:

   # Pre-Submission Review Report
   
   **Paper:** {paper_title}
   **Authors:** {paper_authors}
   **Target Venue:** {venue_full_name} ({venue_code})
   **Review Date:** {today's date, YYYY-MM-DD}
   **Reviewed by:** 6-agent automated pre-submission review system
   

2. Write the Overall Assessment (3-4 sentences): Synthesize the key findings across all 6 agents. Highlight the paper's main strengths and the most critical issues. State the overall readiness for submission to the target venue.

3. Write the Preliminary Recommendation: Based on Agent 6's venue-specific score and the severity of issues found by other agents:

   • Ready for submission — minor issues only, easily fixable
   • Revise before submission — significant issues that must be addressed
   • Major rework needed — fundamental problems with methodology, contribution, or fit
   • Consider alternative venue — paper may be better suited elsewhere

4. Include all 6 agent reports in order, preserving their full structure and formatting.

5. Compile Priority Action Items: Triage all issues across all agents into a single prioritized list:

   ## Priority Action Items
   
   ### P1 — Methodological/Credibility (from Agents 3 & 6)
   [List critical issues]
   
   ### P2 — Missing Required Analyses (from Agent 6)
   [List must-have analyses]
   
   ### P3 — Internal Inconsistencies (from Agent 2)
   [List critical inconsistencies]
   
   ### P4 — Tables, Figures & Reproducibility (from Agent 5)
   [List issues]
   
   ### P5 — Mathematical Errors (from Agent 4)
   [List issues]
   
   ### P6 — Style & Grammar (from Agent 1)
   [List most important style issues]
   

6. Save the report using the Write tool to:

   PRE_SUBMISSION_REVIEW_{YYYY-MM-DD}.md
   

   in the same directory as the main .tex file.

7. Display a brief summary to the user:

   • Paper title and target venue
   • Overall recommendation
   • Count of issues by priority level
   • Path to the saved report file