Install
$ agentstack add skill-lord1egypt-awesome-skill-forge-academic-paper-reviewer ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
About
Academic Paper Reviewer — 7-Agent Review System (Hermes Edition)
📄 License: CC BY-NC 4.0 · Copyright (c) 2026 Cheng-I Wu 🔗 Original: Imbad0202/academic-research-skills 🔄 Adaptation: Multi-agent review system implemented via delegate_task instead of Claude Code's internal agent system. All agent definitions, references, and quality standards preserved unchanged from original. This adaptation is distributed under the same CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Quick Start
Review this paper for journal submission
Agent Team
| # | Agent | Role | |---|-------|------| | 1 | intakeagent | Receive paper, determine review type | | 2 | methodologyreviewer | Method rigor assessment | | 3 | evidencereviewer | Evidence sufficiency & citation quality | | 4 | argumentreviewer | Logical coherence & argument structure | | 5 | domainreviewer | Domain expertise & literature positioning | | 6 | editorinchief | Aggregate reviews → editorial decision | | 7 | revisioncoach | Convert reviews → actionable roadmap |
Hermes Execution
Full Mode: 5-Panel Parallel Review
delegate_task(tasks=[
{"goal": "Review manuscript methodology: design appropriateness, validity threats, replicability. Score 1-5.", "context": "Use agents/methodology_reviewer.md", "toolsets": ["file"]},
{"goal": "Review evidence: citation quality, source credibility, evidence hierarchy alignment. Score 1-5.", "context": "Use agents/evidence_reviewer.md", "toolsets": ["file"]},
{"goal": "Review argument: logical flow, claim-evidence alignment, counter-argument handling. Score 1-5.", "context": "Use agents/argument_reviewer.md", "toolsets": ["file"]},
{"goal": "Review domain positioning: literature coverage, theoretical grounding, contribution significance. Score 1-5.", "context": "Use agents/domain_reviewer.md", "toolsets": ["file"]}
])
Editorial Decision
delegate_task(goal="Aggregate all 4 reviewer reports. Apply weighted scoring (Method 30%, Evidence 25%, Argument 25%, Domain 20%). Issue editorial decision: Accept/Minor Revision/Major Revision/Reject with justification.", context="Use agents/editor_in_chief.md", toolsets=["file"])
Revision Roadmap
delegate_task(goal="Convert editorial decision + reviewer reports into structured Revision Roadmap: prioritized action items, estimated effort, dependency mapping.", context="Use agents/revision_coach.md", toolsets=["file"])
6 Modes
| Mode | Trigger | Agents | |------|---------|--------| | full | "Review paper" | All 7 | | re-review | "Check revisions" | 2→3→4→6 | | quick | "Quick review" | 6 only (EIC assessment) | | methodology-focus | "Check methodology" | 2 only | | guided | "Guide me to improve" | Socratic: 6 with user interaction | | calibration | "Calibrate reviewer" | All + calibration metrics output |
Calibration Mode
Measures reviewer accuracy: FNR (False Negative Rate), FPR (False Positive Rate), AUC. Requires ground-truth labels on prior reviewed papers.
Critical Rules
- ⚠️ Reviewers are paper-blind (don't see author info)
- ⚠️ Every criticism must include specific actionable suggestion
- ⚠️ Calibration mode requires 5+ ground-truth papers
Security & Privacy
Multi-agent design disclosure: This skill delegates review tasks across multiple subagents via delegate_task. Manuscript content and intermediate review outputs are processed by these agents. Use only with manuscripts you are comfortable having processed through the AI provider's delegated-agent workflow. Remove confidential material not needed for review.
Tool access: Subagents are granted only file tools for reading/writing review outputs. No terminal, web, or system tools are exposed.
Agent files: The agents/ directory contains academic peer-review prompt templates (role definitions, scoring rubrics, methodology guidelines). These are task instructions loaded as context in delegate_task calls — NOT system prompt overrides.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: Lord1Egypt
- Source: Lord1Egypt/awesome-skill-forge
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://skill-explorer-rho.vercel.app
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.