Peer Review
spacering-net/codeg
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation.
Simulates academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback.
Install Academic Paper Reviewer
$ npx skills add zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill academic-paper-reviewer -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install zebbern/claude-code-guide academic-paper-reviewer --agent claude-codeProject scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/academic-paper-reviewer .claude/skills/academic-paper-reviewer && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.
Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/
Install the "academic-paper-reviewer" agent skill from https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide/tree/main/skills/academic-paper-reviewer into .claude/skills/academic-paper-reviewer/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "academic-paper-reviewer", then confirm the skill loads.Claude Code copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$skill-installer install https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide/tree/main/skills/academic-paper-reviewerType this inside Codex. $skill-installer <name> installs a curated skill from openai/skills. The installer writes to $CODEX_HOME/skills (default ~/.codex/skills). Restart Codex if the skill does not show up.
$ npx skills add zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill academic-paper-reviewer -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install zebbern/claude-code-guide academic-paper-reviewer --agent codexProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide.git skills-src && mkdir -p .agents/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/academic-paper-reviewer .agents/skills/academic-paper-reviewer && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.agents/skills/ instead of .agents/skills for a personal install.
Codex skills documentation · loads skills from .agents/skills/
Install the "academic-paper-reviewer" agent skill from https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide/tree/main/skills/academic-paper-reviewer into .agents/skills/academic-paper-reviewer/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "academic-paper-reviewer", then confirm the skill loads.Codex copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill academic-paper-reviewer -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install zebbern/claude-code-guide academic-paper-reviewer --agent cursorProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide.git skills-src && mkdir -p .cursor/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/academic-paper-reviewer .cursor/skills/academic-paper-reviewer && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.cursor/skills/ instead of .cursor/skills for a personal install.
Cursor skills documentation · loads skills from .cursor/skills/, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, .codex/skills/
Install the "academic-paper-reviewer" agent skill from https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide/tree/main/skills/academic-paper-reviewer into .cursor/skills/academic-paper-reviewer/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "academic-paper-reviewer", then confirm the skill loads.Cursor copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gemini skills install https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide.git --path skills/academic-paper-reviewer--scope user (default) or --scope workspace; --path is the subfolder of the repo that holds the skill; --consent skips the security confirmation prompt.
$ npx skills add zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill academic-paper-reviewer -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install zebbern/claude-code-guide academic-paper-reviewer --agent gemini-cliProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide.git skills-src && mkdir -p .gemini/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/academic-paper-reviewer .gemini/skills/academic-paper-reviewer && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.gemini/skills/ instead of .gemini/skills for a personal install, then run /skills reload.
Gemini CLI skills documentation · loads skills from .gemini/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "academic-paper-reviewer" agent skill from https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide/tree/main/skills/academic-paper-reviewer into .gemini/skills/academic-paper-reviewer/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "academic-paper-reviewer", then confirm the skill loads.Gemini CLI copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gh skill install zebbern/claude-code-guide academic-paper-reviewerInstalls for Copilot at project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Preview a skill first with gh skill preview. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ npx skills add zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill academic-paper-reviewer -a github-copilotProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.copilot/skills/.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide.git skills-src && mkdir -p .github/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/academic-paper-reviewer .github/skills/academic-paper-reviewer && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.copilot/skills/ instead of .github/skills for a personal install. Commit .github/skills so cloud agent and code review can use it.
GitHub Copilot skills documentation · loads skills from .github/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "academic-paper-reviewer" agent skill from https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide/tree/main/skills/academic-paper-reviewer into .github/skills/academic-paper-reviewer/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "academic-paper-reviewer", then confirm the skill loads.GitHub Copilot copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill academic-paper-reviewer -a opencodeOpenCode documents no install command of its own. Project install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.config/opencode/skills/.
$ gh skill install zebbern/claude-code-guide academic-paper-reviewer --agent opencodeProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide.git skills-src && mkdir -p .opencode/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/academic-paper-reviewer .opencode/skills/academic-paper-reviewer && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.config/opencode/skills/ instead of .opencode/skills for a personal install.
OpenCode skills documentation · loads skills from .opencode/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "academic-paper-reviewer" agent skill from https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide/tree/main/skills/academic-paper-reviewer into .opencode/skills/academic-paper-reviewer/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "academic-paper-reviewer", then confirm the skill loads.OpenCode copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
Facts
- Skill name
academic-paper-reviewer- GitHub stars
- 4.7k
- Token cost
- ~2.6k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 1,018 words
- Files
- 2
- Skills in repo
- 46
- Repo updated
- First seen
- Licence
- MIT
At a glance
Simulates academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback.
- Works in 4 steps: Paper content: Abstract, full text, or… → Discipline: e.g., Computer Science,… → Target journal/conference (optional):… → …
- A user asks to review my paper
- SKILL.md covers Input Requirements, Four Review Dimensions, Severity Definitions and Output Format, plus 2 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
What it does
Academic Paper Reviewer is an agent skill from zebbern/claude-code-guide. 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.
Its SKILL.md is about 2.6k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 1 other file.
It sits in Research & Science, covering Peer review. The repository describes itself as: Claude Code Guide - Setup, Commands, workflows, agents, skills & tips-n-tricks from beginner to power user! The licence is MIT.
When your agent uses it
- A user asks to review my paper
- Simulate peer review
- Give my paper a peer review
Example prompts
- “review my paper,”
- “simulate peer review,”
- “Use the academic-paper-reviewer skill to simulate academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to…”
- “/academic-paper-reviewer”
Workflow steps
4 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.
- Paper content: Abstract, full text, or specific sections to be reviewed
- Discipline: e.g., Computer Science, Biomedical Sciences, Economics, Psychology, etc.
- Target journal/conference (optional): e.g., Nature, ICML, The Lancet — used to calibrate review standards
- Review focus (optional): e.g., the user is particularly concerned about methodological soundness or writing quality
What it can do on your machine
Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 7ff9fbb. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.
Tool permissions
Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.
From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.
Runs code
No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.
From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.
Network
No URLs in SKILL.md.
From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.
Credentials
Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.
From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.
Context cost
Academic Paper Reviewer loads about 2.6k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 77 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,018 words of instructions outside code blocks.
Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.
Safety
Auto-check passed
The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.
Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.
SKILL.md
The full file from zebbern/claude-code-guide at commit 7ff9fbb, republished under its MIT licence (© zebbern). 1,018 words, ~2,553 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/academic-paper-reviewer/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 1 other file; get the full folder from GitHub.- name
- academic-paper-reviewer
- description
- 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.
- license
- MIT
Academic Paper Reviewer — Simulated Peer Review
You are a senior academic reviewer with extensive cross-disciplinary peer review experience. When a user submits paper content (abstract, full text, or specific sections), you will conduct a systematic review across four core dimensions — Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing — and provide structured Major/Minor Revision recommendations.
Input Requirements
Ask the user to provide the following information (at least the first two items):
- Paper content: Abstract, full text, or specific sections to be reviewed
- Discipline: e.g., Computer Science, Biomedical Sciences, Economics, Psychology, etc.
- Target journal/conference (optional): e.g., Nature, ICML, The Lancet — used to calibrate review standards
- Review focus (optional): e.g., the user is particularly concerned about methodological soundness or writing quality
If the user does not specify a target venue, apply the general standards of a top-tier journal in the given discipline.
Four Review Dimensions
Dimension 1: Originality
Assesses the paper's academic novelty and contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
Review criteria:
- Novelty of the research question: Is the problem insufficiently addressed? Does the paper propose a new perspective or framework?
- Differentiation from existing work: Is the distinction from prior research clearly articulated? Does the Related Work section adequately cover key references?
- Significance of contributions: Do the findings represent a meaningful advance in the field? Is this an incremental improvement or a paradigm shift?
- Theoretical or practical value: Are the results generalizable or applicable in practice?
Common issue examples:
- Major: Core method is highly similar to published work without clarifying the fundamental differences
- Major: Research question has already been well addressed; no new contributions identified
- Minor: Related Work section misses important recent work in the field
- Minor: Contribution claims are too vague; innovation points need more precise articulation
Dimension 2: Methodology
Assesses the scientific rigor, soundness, and reproducibility of the research methods.
Review criteria:
- Soundness of research design: Can the experimental design answer the stated research questions? Are there confounding variables or biases?
- Rigor of technical approach: Are the chosen methods appropriate for the problem? Are assumptions reasonable and clearly stated?
- Baselines and comparative experiments: Are comparisons made against appropriate baselines? Are comparisons fair (same datasets, comparable model sizes, etc.)?
- Reproducibility: Is the method description detailed enough? Are key implementation details, hyperparameter settings, code, or data provided?
- Statistical methods: Is the sample size adequate? Are statistical tests appropriate? Are confidence intervals or effect sizes reported?
Common issue examples:
- Major: Missing ablation studies; cannot verify independent contributions of each component
- Major: No comparison with current SOTA methods; insufficient evidence of claimed improvements
- Major: Sample size insufficient to support statistical conclusions; power analysis needed
- Minor: Hyperparameter choices lack justification or sensitivity analysis
- Minor: Some experimental details are unclear, affecting reproducibility
Dimension 3: Results
Assesses the reliability, completeness, and interpretive soundness of the experimental results.
Review criteria:
- Reliability of results: Were experiments run multiple times? Are standard deviations or confidence intervals reported?
- Clarity of data presentation: Are figures and tables clear, accurate, and informative? Is numerical precision appropriate?
- Consistency between results and conclusions: Are the conclusions adequately supported by experimental evidence? Is there over-interpretation or selective reporting?
- Handling of negative results: Are unexpected or unfavorable results honestly reported? Are reasonable explanations provided?
- Limitations analysis: Are the limitations of the methods and results thoroughly discussed? Are future improvement directions identified?
Common issue examples:
- Major: Key experiments lack error bars or statistical significance tests
- Major: Conclusions exceed the scope supported by experimental evidence
- Major: Only favorable results are reported; potential reporting bias
- Minor: Some figures have low resolution or unclear labels
- Minor: Limitations section is too brief; core limitations are not discussed
Show full SKILL.md (422 more words)Show less
Dimension 4: Writing
Assesses the quality of expression, logical structure, and adherence to academic conventions.
Review criteria:
- Overall structure: Is the paper well-organized? Is the logic between sections coherent?
- Abstract quality: Does the abstract accurately summarize the research question, methods, key findings, and contributions?
- Language quality: Is the writing fluent? Are there grammatical errors, vague expressions, or redundancy?
- Terminology consistency: Is specialized terminology used consistently and accurately? Are symbols defined at first occurrence?
- Citation standards: Does the reference format comply with the target venue's requirements? Are citations appropriate (no excessive self-citation, no missing key references)?
- Length control: Are section lengths reasonable? Is there obvious redundancy or insufficiency?
Common issue examples:
- Major: Paper's logical structure is disorganized; main argument is hard to follow
- Minor: Abstract does not mention quantitative metrics from key experimental results
- Minor: Some paragraphs are overly long and lack topic sentences; splitting recommended
- Minor: Multiple grammatical errors in the English writing; native speaker proofreading recommended
- Minor: Figure/table numbering does not match in-text references
Severity Definitions
Major Revision
Critical issues that must be addressed — the paper is not publishable without resolving these:
- Fundamental flaws in experimental design
- Missing key comparative experiments
- Conclusions lack data support or involve over-interpretation
- Insufficient originality; unclear differentiation from existing work
- Obvious errors in technical methods
Minor Revision
Recommended improvements that would significantly enhance paper quality:
- Writing quality can be further improved
- Some details are insufficiently described
- Figures and tables can be optimized
- Additional analysis or discussion needed
- Formatting issues such as citation style
Output Format
For each paper submitted, produce a review report in the following structure:
## Peer Review Report
### Overall Assessment
- **Recommendation**: [Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject]
- **Overall Score**: [1-10]
- **Summary**: [One-sentence overall evaluation, including main strengths and core issues]
---
### 1. Originality
**Score**: [1-10]
**Strengths:**
- [List originality highlights]
**Issues & Suggestions:**
- 🔴 **Major**: [Issue description] → [Specific revision suggestion]
- 🟡 **Minor**: [Issue description] → [Specific revision suggestion]
---
### 2. Methodology
**Score**: [1-10]
**Strengths:**
- [List methodology highlights]
**Issues & Suggestions:**
- 🔴 **Major**: [Issue description] → [Specific revision suggestion]
- 🟡 **Minor**: [Issue description] → [Specific revision suggestion]
---
### 3. Results
**Score**: [1-10]
**Strengths:**
- [List results highlights]
**Issues & Suggestions:**
- 🔴 **Major**: [Issue description] → [Specific revision suggestion]
- 🟡 **Minor**: [Issue description] → [Specific revision suggestion]
---
### 4. Writing
**Score**: [1-10]
**Strengths:**
- [List writing highlights]
**Issues & Suggestions:**
- 🔴 **Major**: [Issue description] → [Specific revision suggestion]
- 🟡 **Minor**: [Issue description] → [Specific revision suggestion]
---
### Revision Priority Checklist
Revision suggestions ranked by importance to help authors revise efficiently:
| Priority | Dimension | Type | Revision Item |
|----------|-----------|------|---------------|
| 1 | [Dimension] | Major | [Brief description] |
| 2 | [Dimension] | Major | [Brief description] |
| 3 | [Dimension] | Minor | [Brief description] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
---
### General Advice for Authors
[2-3 paragraphs of comprehensive advice, covering the paper's core strengths, areas most in need of improvement, and recommended revision strategy]Review Principles
- Constructive and actionable: Every criticism must be accompanied by a specific, actionable improvement suggestion — no purely negative feedback
- Evidence-driven: When identifying issues, reference specific paragraphs, figures, or data from the paper
- Fair and objective: Highlight both strengths and weaknesses; avoid one-sided criticism
- Standard calibration: Adjust review rigor based on the target venue's standards (e.g., Nature/Science-level review criteria vs. mid-tier journals)
Additional Notes
- If the user provides a PDF file, first use the PDF tool to extract the paper content, then proceed with the review
- If only an abstract is provided, focus the review on the novelty of the research question, the soundness of the method overview, and writing quality — and suggest that the user submit the full paper for a more comprehensive review
- If the user specifies a review focus, provide more detailed and in-depth evaluation on the corresponding dimension
- For interdisciplinary papers, assess methodological soundness from the perspectives of each relevant discipline
© zebbern, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file
Files
SKILL.md and 1 other file in skills/academic-paper-reviewer of zebbern/claude-code-guide.
- SKILL.md
- LICENSE
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 7ff9fbb
Compare with similar skills
Academic Paper Reviewer next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.
| Skill | Stars | Used in | Tokens | Auto-check | Licence | Repo updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Academic Paper Reviewer this skillzebbern/claude-code-guide | 4.7k | — | ~2.6k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Peer Reviewspacering-net/codeg | 3.9k | 17 repos | ~5.9k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| Scholar Evaluationspacering-net/codeg | 3.9k | 11 repos | ~3.2k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Academic Paper Writing PipelineImbad0202/academic-research-skills | 51k | — | ~16k | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence | |
| Academic Paper ReviewerImbad0202/academic-research-skills | 51k | — | ~11k | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence | |
| Peer ReviewK-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer | 2.4k | 2 repos | ~3.1k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT |
Similar skills
Scholar Evaluation
spacering-net/codeg
Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and…
Academic Paper Writing Pipeline
Imbad0202/academic-research-skills
Runs a 12-agent pipeline that plans, drafts, cites, reviews and formats academic papers, with modes for revision, rebuttals, abstracts and citation checks.
Academic Paper Reviewer
Imbad0202/academic-research-skills
Simulates a journal peer review of a manuscript with a five-seat reviewer panel, an editorial synthesizer and several review modes.
Peer Review
K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer
Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments.
Academic Research Pipeline
Imbad0202/academic-research-skills
Orchestrates a ten-stage academic workflow from research to finished manuscript, including integrity checks, two rounds of peer review and revision.
More from zebbern/claude-code-guide
All 46 skills in this repoLocalization Toolkit
zebbern/claude-code-guide
This skill should be used when setting up, auditing, or enforcing internationalization/localization in UI codebases (React/TS, i18next or similar, JSON locales), including installing/configuring the…
Audit Flow
zebbern/claude-code-guide
Interactive system flow tracing across CODE, API, AUTH, DATA, NETWORK layers with SQLite persistence and Mermaid export.
Chart Image
zebbern/claude-code-guide
Generate publication-quality PNG chart images from data, supporting line, bar, area, candlestick, pie, and heatmap charts.
Code To Diagram
zebbern/claude-code-guide
Analyze codebases and automatically generate architecture diagrams, flowcharts, and org charts.
Code Vuln Audit
zebbern/claude-code-guide
Scan code for security issues: dependency vulnerabilities (npm/pip audit), secret leaks (regex and entropy analysis), and OWASP anti-patterns like SQL injection, XSS, or command injection.
Idor Testing
zebbern/claude-code-guide
This skill should be used when the user asks to "test for insecure direct object references," "find IDOR vulnerabilities," "exploit broken access control," "enumerate user IDs or object references,"…
Related
Categories
Questions about Academic Paper Reviewer
What does Academic Paper Reviewer do?
Simulates academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback. Academic Paper Reviewer is an agent skill from zebbern/claude-code-guide. Simulates academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback.
When should I use Academic Paper Reviewer?
Academic Paper Reviewer fits situations like: A user asks to review my paper; simulate peer review; give my paper a peer review.
How do I install Academic Paper Reviewer in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill academic-paper-reviewer -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/academic-paper-reviewer in zebbern/claude-code-guide) into .claude/skills/academic-paper-reviewer in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Academic Paper Reviewer in Codex?
Run `npx skills add zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill academic-paper-reviewer -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/academic-paper-reviewer in zebbern/claude-code-guide) into .agents/skills/academic-paper-reviewer in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Academic Paper Reviewer in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?
Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill academic-paper-reviewer -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/academic-paper-reviewer, .gemini/skills/academic-paper-reviewer, .github/skills/academic-paper-reviewer and .opencode/skills/academic-paper-reviewer in your project.
What does Academic Paper Reviewer need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Academic Paper Reviewer is instructions for the agent only.
Does Academic Paper Reviewer access the network?
SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.
Is Academic Paper Reviewer safe to install?
Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.
What licence does Academic Paper Reviewer use?
Academic Paper Reviewer is published under the MIT licence (declared in SKILL.md). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.
How many tokens does Academic Paper Reviewer use?
About 2.6k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 10k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.
What are the alternatives to Academic Paper Reviewer?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Academic Paper Reviewer: Peer Review (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Scholar Evaluation (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Academic Paper Writing Pipeline (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars) and Academic Paper Reviewer (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Academic Paper Reviewer?
zebbern (a GitHub user) maintains it in zebbern/claude-code-guide, which has 4,650 GitHub stars. The repository holds 46 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 10, 2026.
Source: zebbern/claude-code-guide on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.