academic-paper-reviewer

Configure a five-member reviewer team to assess academic manuscripts and produce an Editorial Decision and Revision Roadmap.

Updated Apr 27, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Tnemo65/template --skill academic-paper-reviewer-tnemo65
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: academic-paper-reviewer
Source: https://github.com/Tnemo65/template/tree/main/.cursor/skills/academic-paper-reviewer
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Tnemo65/template --skill academic-paper-reviewer-tnemo65

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Enables autonomous, multi-perspective academic paper review by configuring a five-member reviewer team (Editor-in-Chief, three peer reviewers, and a Devil's Advocate) to assess manuscripts from diverse angles and deliver a structured decision package plus a prioritized revision roadmap.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Dynamic reviewer personas: automatically configures 5 independent reviewers with domain-specific expertise and cross-cutting perspectives.
  • End-to-end sprint workflow: supports a 10-phase process from field analysis to editorial synthesis and revision coaching.
  • Output suite: produces five reviewer reports, an Editorial Decision Letter, and a ready-to-use Revision Roadmap compatible with downstream revision modes.
  • Modes & governance: supports full, re-review, quick, methodology-focus, guided, and calibration modes; enforces hard governance rules to preserve review integrity (no manuscript edits by reviewers).
  • Integration: designed to slot into existing academic-paper workflows and to chain with upstream/downstream Skill units for end-to-end automation.

Quick Start

Provide the paper to review by pasting the paper text or providing the PDF file; the system will configure the 5 reviewers, execute the 10-phase process, and return the final decision package and revision roadmap.

Frequently Asked Questions about academic-paper-reviewer

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I get a multi-perspective peer review for an academic manuscript?

Academic peer review is automated by configuring a five-member team—including an Editor-in-Chief, three reviewers, and a Devil's Advocate—to assess manuscripts from diverse angles and produce a structured decision package.

What outputs does the automated academic paper review process generate?

The academic paper review process generates five independent reviewer reports, an Editorial Decision Letter, and a prioritized Revision Roadmap designed for downstream revision workflows.

Can I run a focused methodology review instead of a full academic paper evaluation?

You can run a focused methodology review because the system supports multiple governance modes including full, re-review, quick, methodology-focus, guided, and calibration modes.

How does the Devil's Advocate role work during manuscript evaluation?

The Devil's Advocate operates as one of five independent reviewer personas to provide a cross-cutting perspective during manuscript evaluation, ensuring critical flaws are identified before the final editorial synthesis.

Are there integrity constraints preventing reviewers from editing my submitted paper?

Hard governance rules enforce review integrity by prohibiting any manuscript edits from the five configured reviewers, ensuring the original text remains unchanged while producing assessment outputs.

Can the generated revision roadmap integrate with downstream academic writing workflows?

The generated revision roadmap is explicitly compatible with downstream academic-paper revision modes, allowing the structured editorial outputs to chain directly into automated writing and revision workflows.