academic-paper-reviewer

Simulates academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback. Triggers when a user asks to "review my paper," "simulate peer review," or "give my paper a peer review.

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is a well-structured, actionable instruction-only skill with clear sequencing and a concrete output template. The main improvement opportunity is tightening the lengthy inlined reference material, possibly by splitting criteria/examples into bundle files for better progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Move the per-dimension "Common issue examples" lists into a separate references file (e.g., references/issue-examples.md) and link to it from the main dimensions section to reduce inline length and improve progressive disclosure.

Extract the full Peer Review Report template into a references/ template file, keeping only a compact summary of the output structure inline in SKILL.md.

Trim or consolidate the redundant severity framing between the "Common issue examples" (Major/Minor) and the standalone "Severity Definitions" section to reduce token usage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the per-dimension "Common issue examples" and full output template make it a fairly long reference-style document with minor trimmable redundancy.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete review criteria per dimension, specific Major/Minor issue examples, and a copy-paste-ready output template, leaving only minor gaps in edge-case guidance for an instruction-only skill.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The review process is clearly sequenced (gather inputs → assess four dimensions → assign severity → emit templated report) with edge-case handling notes, though no explicit validation feedback loop is needed for this non-destructive task.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized with clear section headers and self-contained, but the detailed issue examples and full report template are inlined reference material in a ~227-line file rather than split into separate bundle files.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is strong: it states concrete capabilities, uses natural trigger phrases with synonyms, and explicitly pairs what-and-when guidance. Its only minor gap is missing a few plausible trigger variations such as manuscript-related phrasings.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions—"evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing" plus "provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback"—giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what the skill does (simulate peer review across four dimensions, yield Major/Minor recommendations) and when to use it via concrete "Triggers when..." phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural trigger phrases users would say ("review my paper," "simulate peer review," "give my paper a peer review") with synonyms, but a few common variations like "evaluate my manuscript" are absent.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (academic peer review simulation) with distinct triggers, creating minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: zebbern/claude-code-guide
Path: skills/academic-paper-reviewer/SKILL.md
Commit: 59c5fc4

Reviewed: ~13 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.