agentsclimarketplace
Sign in

Adversarial review

Skill VincenzoImp/academic-research-skills/skills/adversarial-review

Use when reviewing the survey, a contribution, or a paper draft as a severe but fair reviewer — claim audit, methodology critique, and venue-reviewer simulation before submission.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add VincenzoImp/academic-research-skills --skill adversarial-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its file declares

Copied from the file, not written here

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

2.3 KB, 474 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Adversarial Review

Find the objections that would block acceptance before external reviewers do. Review; never fix. Findings go to a report beside the artifact; the artifact itself is never edited by this skill.

Read First

  • the artifact under review: survey/survey.tex + PDF, or a contribution README + report, or a manuscript + framing.md + venue.md
  • references/review-lanes.md, references/claim-audit.md

Procedure

  1. Identify the target and the standard it must meet:
    • survey → coverage vs sota/index.md, grouping logic, fairness, and the quality of the gaps section
    • contribution → badge-checklist truthfulness, methodology (the develop-contribution methodology standard), claim–evidence match
    • paper → venue fit and reviewer simulation per venue.md, novelty, soundness, clarity
  2. Read claim-first: contributions/claims, then the evidence offered.
  3. Run the claim audit on every acceptance-critical claim per references/claim-audit.md: verify each against the cited synthesis, contribution output, or PDF.
  4. Review through every lane in references/review-lanes.md; keep lane findings separate until the final synthesis.
  5. Write the report to reviews/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<scope>.md beside the artifact (survey/reviews/, contributions/<slug>/reviews/, papers/<slug>/reviews/ — create the folder on demand) with: executive summary and recommendation; strengths with evidence; weaknesses grouped by severity; the claim-audit table; questions the authors must answer; a prioritized revision roadmap.

Criticism Standard

Every major criticism carries: exact claim or location, why it matters, evidence, what would fix or weaken it, severity (fatal / major / moderate / minor), and confidence. No performative harshness; no objection without evidence; polish never excuses methodological weakness.

Done When

  • The report exists with all sections, every fatal/major finding is evidence-backed, and no lane finding was dropped during synthesis — if a finding is wrong, the report says why

What ships with it: 2 files

1.6 KB alongside SKILL.md

references/

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,499. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.