kill-argument

Simulate a hostile reviewer to identify critical rejection arguments in research papers.

1|Updated Jul 21, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/dogekiki/SP-test --skill kill-argument-dogekiki
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: kill-argument
Source: https://github.com/dogekiki/SP-test/tree/main/.trae/skills/kill-argument
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/dogekiki/SP-test --skill kill-argument-dogekiki

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

This skill addresses the failure mode where research papers pass standard reviews but contain critical, hidden flaws that would lead to rejection by a senior area chair.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Adversarial Attack: Simulates a hostile reviewer to construct the single most damaging 200-word rejection argument.
  • Point-by-Point Defense: Forces a second, independent adjudication to classify rejection points as answered, partially answered, or unresolved.
  • Use Case: Run this before submitting a theory paper to identify and patch scope overclaims, missing proof obligations, or assumption-vs-claim mismatches that standard peer reviews often miss.

Quick Start

Run the kill-argument skill on the paper directory named research-paper-v1 to generate an adversarial review and adjudication report.

Frequently Asked Questions about kill-argument

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

FAQPage Schema
What is adversarial peer review for academic papers?

An adversarial stress-test simulates a hostile reviewer to construct the most damaging rejection argument against a research paper, forcing a second independent adjudication to classify points as answered or unresolved.

How do I stress-test a theory paper before submission?

Run an adversarial review skill on your paper directory to generate a multi-thread adversarial analysis and adjudication report, validating claims, proofs, and scope against a hostile reviewer simulation.

Does this adversarial review work for any academic writing?

This adversarial review applies specifically to theory-heavy academic papers requiring pre-submission validation of claims and proofs, rather than general academic writing or empirical studies.

What's the best way to find hidden flaws in a research paper?

The best way is an adversarial review that constructs a 200-word rejection argument and forces an independent adjudication to classify rejection points as answered, partially answered, or unresolved.

Do I need any specific tools to run an adversarial paper review?

You need mcp__codex__codex to perform the multi-thread adversarial analysis and adjudication, ensuring the review operates without prior context bias.

When should I not use an adversarial review approach?

You should avoid using adversarial review for papers outside theory-heavy domains, as the stress-test specifically targets assumption-vs-claim mismatches and missing proof obligations inherent to theoretical validation.