peer-review

Reviews academic papers as an adverse referee with page-anchored objections and derived verdicts.

2|2|Updated Jun 21, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/BTreeMap/SKILLs --skill peer-review-btreemap
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: peer-review
Source: https://github.com/BTreeMap/SKILLs/tree/main/peer-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/BTreeMap/SKILLs --skill peer-review-btreemap

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill requires btm-corekit, rapidfuzz, and includes scripts (resource) and references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? Peer review of papers often produces vague, unverifiable criticism or restates what authors already concede. This Skill forces every objection to quote the paper verbatim, resolve to a page, and cite dated prior work from a real literature search, then derives the recommendation mechanically from what survives scrutiny. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Anchored Objections: Every weakness must quote the paper verbatim (resolved to a page by the script) or name a specific omission; unanchored objections are rejected by the gate. - Five Review Banks: Structured walkthroughs of claims, study design, statistical analysis, limitations, and novelty, with a firewall that blocks illegitimate objections like "not novel" without a citation. - Derived Verdicts: The recommendation (reject, major/minor revision) and confidence band are computed from grounded objections by the session engine, never asserted freely. - Use Case: Given a manuscript PDF, run a full review: extract claims from the abstract, walk each bank noting objections with quotes, link a lit-review corpus for novelty checks, and produce a referee report where every marker is verified by cite-check. ## Quick Start Review the paper at manuscript.pdf as an adverse referee at full level and produce a referee report with page-cited objections.

Frequently Asked Questions about peer-review

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I review a research paper with an AI agent?

Initialize a session with the paper's title and date, ingest text extracted via the read-pdf skill, then note claims and objections in JSON batches. Every objection must quote the paper verbatim or name a specific omission, and the check command derives the final recommendation.

How does the skill verify novelty claims in a paper?

Novelty objections require corpus keys from a linked lit-review session whose records predate the paper. Claims of being first or state-of-the-art are refused by the gate unless they cite dated prior work found through an actual literature search.

What review depth levels does peer-review support?

Three levels: lite walks only the claims and limitations banks with abstract-level reading, full walks all five banks with a literature corpus, and ultra adds recomputation of reported numbers and forward snowballing from every prior-work citation.

Can the review cite objections without quoting the paper?

No. Every objection must either quote the paper verbatim (resolved to a page at 0.85 similarity or better) or name a missing item with its expected location. Objections that fail anchoring are rejected and cannot enter the report.

What are the limitations of automated peer review with this skill?

The review only covers what the extracted text and linked corpus support; without network access the novelty bank is unassessed, and papers with no reachable text run at lite only. It also cannot judge correctness of results beyond internal consistency and recomputation.