What problem does it solve? Researchers submitting papers lack early, honest feedback on how a real program committee would judge their manuscript, and informal self-review misses weaknesses in novelty, soundness, rigor, and clarity. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Five-Perspective Panel: Dispatches concurrent reviewers covering novelty and related work, technical soundness, experimental rigor and reproducibility, clarity and presentation, plus a devil's advocate, synthesized by a chair into one meta-review. - Anchored Rubric Scoring: Scores on a 6-point conference scale or journal tiers with hard caps and honest confidence levels, never averaging panel enthusiasm. - Citation Integrity Contract: References must come from the manuscript's whitelist or be verified by logged searches during the run; unverifiable claims are demoted to unnamed directions. - Use Case: Before submitting to a conference, run the panel on your built PDF to receive a SIM_REVIEW report whose weaknesses name the exact claim IDs they attack, then route fixes to drafting and auditing skills or draft a rebuttal with the response writer. ## Quick Start Ask the assistant to run a simulated peer review panel on this repository's manuscript for the current cycle, optionally specifying quick mode or an external paper path.
