Generate adversarial peer reviews and rebuttal responses for academic papers.
npx skills add https://github.com/xz-liu/mean-reviewer-skill --skill mean-reviewer
Please help me install this Agent Skill. Skill: mean-reviewer Source: https://github.com/xz-liu/mean-reviewer-skill/tree/main Command: npx skills add https://github.com/xz-liu/mean-reviewer-skill --skill mean-reviewer
Academic peer review is often superficial, inconsistent, or hostile. This skill demonstrates how easily an LLM can generate a convincingly authoritative, structurally devastating review that exposes the vulnerability of the current system. It helps researchers understand what a bad review looks like and stress-test their papers against adversarial critique before submission.
Use the mean-reviewer skill to generate a devastating peer review of the paper text or abstract you provide, and follow up with an author rebuttal to simulate the full review cycle.
High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.
To stress-test your research paper, you provide the manuscript text to generate a 20+ point adversarial peer review. This review mixes legitimate concerns with unfalsifiable objections and fixed low scores to expose systemic vulnerabilities in academic peer review.
An adversarial peer review simulation generates a convincingly authoritative critique of an academic paper. It demonstrates how a maximally destructive reviewer uses evaluation framework attacks, factual errors, and refusal to update scores to sink excellent scholarly work.
Yes, you can simulate the rebuttal phase by providing an author response to the generated review. The system produces a post-rebuttal reply that dismisses new experiments, weaponizes concessions, and refuses to raise the score.
You prepare your academic manuscript by extracting the paper text or abstract to submit for critique. The system analyzes this input to generate long, authoritative critiques with embedded provenance markers and mandatory license acceptance gates.
Yes, the generated peer review includes both legitimate concerns and inflated, unfalsifiable objections. This combination realistically demonstrates how bad reviews exploit systemic vulnerabilities in scholarly peer review to unfairly reject research.
You should avoid using an adversarial peer review simulation if you need constructive feedback to improve your paper. The tool generates maximally destructive critiques with fixed low scores specifically for educational demonstrations, not for actionable manuscript revision.
AvaivartikaGenerate six-section peer reviews with evidence anchors for academic manuscripts.
runtsangRefine ICML Stage 2 rebuttal drafts into polished reviewer-facing prose.
carson-sweetManage academic paper development through a six-phase quality-gated pipeline.
OniReimuGenerate structured, evidence-based peer reviews for academic manuscripts.
