assess-paper

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Assess Paper

The single command that tells an author where they stand and explains why, so a non-expert isn't left staring at five separate tool outputs. It does not re-implement any check; it runs the specialist skills and turns their results into one readable Paper Health Report that leads with strengths, then risks, then a ranked to-do list.

Pairs with

orchestrate-paper

(which drives the full lifecycle) —

assess-paper

is the read-only "where am I right now" snapshot you can run at any point. Copilot, not pilot: it reports and explains, it never edits the paper or submits anything.

这是一个能告知作者当前论文状态并解释原因的单一命令，让非专业人士无需面对五个独立工具的输出结果。它不会重新实现任何检查功能，而是调用各类专业技能，并将结果整合为一份易读的Paper Health Report，内容依次为优势、风险以及优先级排序的待办事项清单。

它与

orchestrate-paper

搭配使用（后者负责驱动论文全生命周期管理）——

assess-paper

是一个只读的“当前状态快照”工具，你可在任意阶段运行它。它是辅助工具而非主导工具：仅负责报告和解释，绝不会编辑论文或提交任何内容。

When to use

适用场景

The author wants one overview instead of running five skills and stitching the results together.
Early ("how far off am I?") or late ("am I ready to submit?").
A co-author or advisor wants a quick, honest state-of-the-paper.

作者希望获得一份综合概述，而非分别运行五个技能再自行整合结果。
论文撰写早期（“我还差多少？”）或后期（“我是否准备好提交了？”）。
合著者或导师想要快速、真实地了解论文的当前状态。

When NOT to use it (say this plainly)

不适用场景（直白说明）

You want one specific check — run that skill directly (e.g. just citations →
```
verify-citations
```
).
You want fixes applied — this skill only diagnoses; hand each fix to the skill that owns it.
You want an acceptance probability or award forecast — no tool can give one honestly; this skill refuses to.

你只需要某一项特定检查——直接运行对应的技能即可（例如仅检查引用→
```
verify-citations
```
）。
你希望自动应用修改——本工具仅负责诊断；需将每项修改任务交给对应的专业技能处理。
你想要论文录用概率或获奖预测——没有工具能给出真实的此类结果；本工具会拒绝提供这类预测。

Inputs

输入内容

The draft: a
```
.tex
```
source tree, a compiled PDF, or a readable draft. Processed transiently — never copied into this repo.
The target venue and track (what counts as "ready" differs by venue). Ask if unstated; run against the nearest family default and say so if no profile exists.
Optional:
```
.paper-memory/profile.yml
```
(positioning) and
```
lessons.md
```
(recurring weaknesses), if present.

论文草稿：
```
.tex
```
源码目录、编译后的PDF文件或可阅读的草稿。仅临时处理——绝不会复制到本仓库中。
目标会议/期刊及赛道（“就绪”的标准因不同平台而异）。若未明确说明则主动询问；若无对应配置文件，则使用最相近的默认配置并告知用户。
可选：若存在
```
.paper-memory/profile.yml
```
（定位配置）和
```
lessons.md
```
（常见薄弱点记录），可一并提供。

What it consolidates

整合的评估维度

Dimension	Skill it runs	What it contributes to the report
Will it get desk-rejected?	`preflight-check`	compliance blockers (page limit, anonymization, missing sections)
Are the citations real?	`verify-citations`	fabricated / retracted / duplicate references
Is it original?	`check-originality`	plagiarism / self-recycling overlap
Does it match strong work at the venue?	`benchmark-paper`	venue-fit scorecard + weakest dimensions
What will reviewers say?	`simulate-reviewers`	strengths, weaknesses, rubric scores, decision-risk

评估维度	调用的技能	为报告提供的内容
是否会被初审拒稿？	`preflight-check`	合规性障碍（页数限制、匿名性要求、缺失章节）
引用是否真实有效？	`verify-citations`	伪造/撤回/重复引用情况
内容是否原创？	`check-originality`	抄袭/自我重复的重叠度
是否符合目标平台的优质标准？	`benchmark-paper`	平台适配度评分卡 + 最薄弱维度
评审者会给出什么评价？	`simulate-reviewers`	优势、不足、评分标准得分、录用风险

Process

执行流程

Confirm the target (venue + track) and read
```
.paper-memory/profile.yml
```
if present, so the assessment matches the paper's positioning — a theory paper and an applied paper are judged differently.
Run the checks that apply to the draft's stage. Compliance and citations/originality are integrity gates; benchmark and mock-review are quality reads. Skip and say so if an input is missing (e.g. no
```
.bib
```
yet) — never fabricate a result to fill a gap.
Synthesize the Paper Health Report (do not dump five raw outputs):
- Overall read — one honest paragraph: roughly where the paper stands and the single most important thing to do next. Never an acceptance probability.
- Top strengths (lead with these) — 3–5 concrete things the paper does well, drawn from the mock review and benchmark, each tied to a section, so the author knows what to protect while editing.
- Biggest risks — ranked by impact × ease of fix, each linking to the skill that fixes it.
- Scorecard + gates — the venue-fit index, mock-review decision-risk band, and a clear pass / flag on each integrity gate (citations, originality, desk-reject).
- Do next — a short ordered checklist.
Write the report to
```
paper-workspace/review/paper-health-report.md
```
and present the summary in chat.

Any venue fact that flows through from the sub-skills (a page limit, a deadline, a required section) carries its source and confidence label exactly as the sub-skill reported it — do not restate a venue rule the underlying skill could not verify.

确认目标（会议/期刊 + 赛道），若存在
```
.paper-memory/profile.yml
```
则读取该文件，确保评估符合论文的定位——理论论文和应用论文的评判标准不同。
运行与草稿阶段匹配的检查。合规性、引用/原创性属于完整性门槛；对标评估和模拟评审属于质量评估。若缺少某项输入（例如还没有
```
.bib
```
文件）则跳过并告知用户——绝不编造结果填补空白。
生成Paper Health Report（不直接输出五个工具的原始结果）：
- 整体评估——一段真实客观的描述：论文大致处于什么阶段，以及最首要的改进任务。绝不提及录用概率。
- 核心优势（优先展示）——3-5条论文的具体亮点，来自模拟评审和对标评估，每条都关联具体章节，让作者知道编辑时需要保留哪些内容。
- 主要风险——按影响程度×修复难度排序，每条都关联对应的修复技能。
- 评分卡与门槛——平台适配度指数、模拟评审的录用风险等级，以及各完整性门槛（引用、原创性、初审拒稿）的明确通过/标记状态。
- 下一步行动——简短的有序清单。
生成报告文件至
```
paper-workspace/review/paper-health-report.md
```
，并在对话中展示摘要内容。

所有来自子技能的平台规则（如页数限制、截止日期、必填章节）都将完全保留子技能报告的来源和置信度标签——绝不重述底层技能无法验证的平台规则。

Worked mini-example

迷你示例

Input: a draft

paper.tex

refs.bib

, targeting

sigspatial-2026

(full track). The synthesized report opens like this:

markdown

undefined

输入：草稿文件

paper.tex

refs.bib

，目标平台为

sigspatial-2026

（全论文赛道）。生成的报告开头如下：

markdown

undefined

Paper Health Report — paper.tex → SIGSPATIAL 2026 (full track) · 2026-06-21

Overall read

Structurally this reads like a SIGSPATIAL full paper and the core method is clearly framed. The one thing holding it back is the evaluation: a single dataset with no significance test is the weakness every mock reviewer flagged. Fix that before anything else.

Top strengths (protect these)

Crisp contribution list, 3 claims each mapped to a section (§1) — mock panel praised the framing.
Strong, reproducible artifact: code + seeds released (§6) — benchmark scored reproducibility 9/10, above the exemplar median.
Clear problem motivation tied to a real spatial workload (§2).

Crisp contribution list, 3 claims each mapped to a section (§1) — mock panel praised the framing.
Strong, reproducible artifact: code + seeds released (§6) — benchmark scored reproducibility 9/10, above the exemplar median.
Clear problem motivation tied to a real spatial workload (§2).

Biggest risks (ranked by impact × ease)

Single-dataset evaluation, no significance test — add a second dataset + variance. → simulate-reviewers (soundness), benchmark-paper (evaluation)
2 references unresolvable on Crossref/DBLP (likely wrong year). → verify-citations
Page count at 9.3 / 9 — over the limit. → preflight-check, fit-page-limit

Single-dataset evaluation, no significance test — add a second dataset + variance. → simulate-reviewers (soundness), benchmark-paper (evaluation)
2 references unresolvable on Crossref/DBLP (likely wrong year). → verify-citations
Page count at 9.3 / 9 — over the limit. → preflight-check, fit-page-limit

Scorecard + gates

Venue-fit index: 7.1/10 — "structurally in line; evaluation is the gap"
Mock decision-risk: borderline-reject (no champion)
Gates: citations FLAG (2 unresolvable) · originality PASS · desk-reject FLAG (over page limit)

Venue-fit index: 7.1/10 — "structurally in line; evaluation is the gap"
Mock decision-risk: borderline-reject (no champion)
Gates: citations FLAG (2 unresolvable) · originality PASS · desk-reject FLAG (over page limit)

Do next

Resolve the 2 citations (verify-citations) — quick, removes an integrity flag.
Trim to the page limit (fit-page-limit).
Add the second dataset + significance test (the real lever).

undefined

Resolve the 2 citations (verify-citations) — quick, removes an integrity flag.
Trim to the page limit (fit-page-limit).
Add the second dataset + significance test (the real lever).

undefined

Output

输出结果

A single

paper-health-report.md

: overall read → strengths → ranked risks → scorecard & gates → do-next checklist. Each finding names the underlying skill so the author can drill in. Plain language throughout — the goal is the author understanding their paper, not a wall of metrics.

生成一份单独的

paper-health-report.md

文件：内容依次为整体评估→优势→优先级排序的风险→评分卡与合规门槛→下一步行动清单。每个结论都会标注背后调用的技能，方便作者深入了解。全程使用通俗易懂的语言——目标是让作者理解自己的论文，而非堆砌一堆指标。

Guardrails

约束规则

Strengths are mandatory and come first. An assessment that is all problems misleads the author about what to preserve — surface what genuinely works, but never invent strengths to pad.
Honest readiness read only — never a probability of acceptance or an award (see
```
benchmark-paper
```
,
```
simulate-reviewers
```
). Refuse if asked, and explain why.
Integrity gates (fabricated citations, plagiarism, desk-reject blockers) are reported as blockers, not averaged away by good scores elsewhere.
It reports and explains; it never edits the paper or submits anything. Hand fixes to the specific skills.
Process the paper transiently; never copy paper text into this repo.

必须先列出优势。全是问题的评估会误导作者不知道该保留哪些内容——要突出真正有效的部分，但绝不能编造优势来凑数。
仅提供真实的就绪度评估——绝不给出录用概率或获奖预测（详见
```
benchmark-paper
```
、
```
simulate-reviewers
```
的说明）。若被要求提供此类预测，将拒绝并解释原因。
完整性门槛（伪造引用、抄袭、初审拒稿障碍）会被标记为障碍，不会因其他方面的高分而被掩盖。
仅负责报告和解释；绝不会编辑论文或提交任何内容。修改任务需交给对应的专业技能处理。
仅临时处理论文内容；绝不会将论文文本复制到本仓库中。

Memory

记忆机制

Uses the shared

.paper-memory/

convention described by

paper-memory-convention.md

At start: read
```
profile.yml
```
(positioning) and
```
lessons.md
```
(recurring weaknesses) so the report is personalized and tracks progress across drafts — lead with any
```
recurring
```
weakness.
At end: append durable takeaways in the shared format
```
- [YYYY-MM-DD] (assess-paper | <scope>) finding -> recommendation
```
via
```
reflect-and-improve
```
's
```
reflect_log.py append
```
(it dedupes and dates). A weakness that persists across drafts is
```
recurring
```
; a one-time gap is
```
this-paper
```
. Log lasting takeaways, not the full report or per-run scores.
Create
```
.paper-memory/
```
on demand; it is local-only and never uploaded.

遵循

paper-memory-convention.md

中描述的共享

.paper-memory/

约定。

启动时：读取
```
profile.yml
```
（定位配置）和
```
lessons.md
```
（常见薄弱点记录），让报告更贴合论文情况，并跟踪不同版本草稿的进展——优先展示标记为
```
recurring
```
的薄弱点。
结束时：通过
```
reflect-and-improve
```
的
```
reflect_log.py append
```
方法，以共享格式
```
- [YYYY-MM-DD] (assess-paper | <scope>) finding -> recommendation
```
添加持久化结论（该方法会自动去重并标注日期）。在多版草稿中持续存在的薄弱点标记为
```
recurring
```
；仅当前草稿存在的问题标记为
```
this-paper
```
。仅记录长期结论，不保存完整报告或每次运行的评分。
按需创建
```
.paper-memory/
```
目录；该目录仅本地存在，绝不会被上传。