Loading...
Loading...
Found 3 Skills
Iteratively write academic documents (paper sections, research proposals, technical documents) with quality improvement loop. Uses academic-planner for structure design and academic-reviewer for quality evaluation. Ensures no hallucinations through fact verification.
Paper reviewer that evaluates machine learning research projects following official ICML reviewer guidelines. Provides comprehensive reviews with actionable feedback across all key dimensions: claims/evidence, relation to prior work, originality, significance, clarity, and reproducibility. Also provides formative feedback on incomplete drafts, proposals, and research code repositories. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: review paper, ICML review, paper review, evaluate paper, research paper feedback, ML paper review, conference review, academic review, paper critique, NeurIPS review, ICLR review, project proposal, research proposal, paper draft, early feedback, incomplete paper, work in progress, WIP review, review repo, review codebase, research project review
Critical analysis of research papers, academic manuscripts, preprints, and technical studies — evaluating methodology, claims-evidence alignment, contribution significance, and intellectual honesty. Produces coherent analytical responses (not checklists) that distinguish genuine weaknesses from standard field limitations. Governs intellectual posture: collegial reader, not adversarial reviewer. Triggers on: "critique this paper", "review this research", "what do you think of this paper", "analyze this study", "evaluate the methodology", "is this paper sound", "assess this research", "strengths and weaknesses of this paper", "does the evidence support the claims". Use this skill when the user provides a research paper, preprint, or technical study and asks for critical evaluation of its scientific merit, methodology, or contribution — not formatting, citation hygiene, or submission readiness (use manuscript-review for those).