What problem does it solve? Authors submitting papers to conferences or journals risk desk rejection or harsh first-round reviews due to logic gaps, unsupported claims, missing baselines, or formatting issues they cannot see themselves. This Skill acts as an experienced reviewer, auditing a near-final manuscript before submission and producing a prioritized list of problems tied to exact locations in the text. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Six-layer review: Checks overall argument logic, claim-evidence alignment, novelty and academic value, writing and language quality, AI-tone and em-dash patterns, and figure/LaTeX formatting. - Severity-ranked findings: Classifies every issue as rejection-worthy (CRITICAL), first-round-flagged (MAJOR), or polish-level (MINOR), each anchored to a quoted sentence, figure, or section in the manuscript. - Discipline-aware standards: Adapts review criteria for STEM, humanities, empirical social science, finance/economics, and law papers, and flags venue mismatch with alternative venue suggestions. - Literature verification: Uses scholar_search to validate novelty claims and detect missing citations of important related work. - Use Case: Three days before a deadline, paste your draft and ask for a pre-submission review; receive a verdict (ready to submit / needs polish / needs major revision) plus an actionable issue list. ## Quick Start Review my attached paper draft as a reviewer before I submit it to the target conference and list the problems by severity.
