Academic Paper Review
Review a supplied paper by separating its claims, evidence and limitations.
Get a structured review with page-linked evidence and unanswered questions.
Free · 2 KB · SKILL.md, instructions and example files. Provide the paper text or a readable file; source retrieval needs browsing access.
A worked example
A small example to try before using your own data.
Input
Abstract: A model scored 82% on one 100-example test set. The baseline scored 80%. No confidence interval or repeated runs were reported. Claim: the method reliably improves accuracy.
Expected result
Claim: reliable improvement. Evidence: 82/100 versus 80/100 on one set. Concern: uncertainty and run variability are not reported; reliability is not established. Request: paired predictions, test construction details and repeated-run or suitable paired uncertainty analysis.
What to check: Do not invent experiments, citations or significance. The concern must follow from the supplied abstract.
Limits: This is a review aid, not an independent replication. A short abstract is insufficient to judge the full method.
Worked example included. Model-specific performance and vendor compatibility have not been benchmarked.
🧠 Why it works
Do not invent experiments, citations or significance. The concern must follow from the supplied abstract.
⚙️ How it works
- Identify the research question, contribution, study design and comparator from the paper itself.
- Build a claim/evidence table with page or section references. Separate measured outcomes from author interpretation.
- Check whether the method supports the claimed generalization: sampling, controls, leakage, uncertainty and reproducibility.
- Write strengths and concerns in order of their effect on the central claim. Distinguish missing information from demonstrated errors.
- End with specific questions or experiments that would resolve the main uncertainty.
Description
Get a structured review with page-linked evidence and unanswered questions.
Provide the paper text or a readable file; source retrieval needs browsing access.
Limits: This is a review aid, not an independent replication. A short abstract is insufficient to judge the full method.
Recommended Use
Sign in to suggestTools and workflow packs this skill pairs well with. Forge picks are auto-generated from category + capability signals; Community picks are added by people who've used the pairing.
Forge Auto-recommended matches
Workflow packs
-
Product Documentation Change Pack post 31%
Turn a defined product change into documentation with runnable examples and review gates.
Why: caps 0/0 · io-match · name-mention
-
Localization Review Pack post 31%
Adapt approved content for a named locale while preserving meaning and required terms.
Why: caps 0/0 · io-match · name-mention
Report compatibility
Tell the community which tool you used this skill with, and whether it worked.
Suggest a pairing
Recommend a tool or workflow pack that this skill works well with. Up to 5 recommendations per day.