Self review

Skill yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit/plugins/academic-writing-toolkit/skills/self-review

Local-first, evidence-controlled academic writing workflows for AI agents, with bounded revision, clean-room review, and release governance.

Install

npx -y skills add yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit --skill self-review

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

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Review the user's own manuscript, paper, thesis chapter, rebuttal, or release packet with clean-room anti-contamination controls. Use when asked for self-review, internal review, pre-submission review, readiness check, reviewer simulation on own work, or claim-evidence self-audit where prior chat memory, unstated assumptions, model background knowledge, or unlisted local notes must not be treated as evidence.

SKILL.md

4.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

/self-review - Clean-Room Manuscript Self-Review

Purpose

Audit the user's own work without letting memory, prior chats, unstated project knowledge, or the model's background knowledge become evidence.

The governing rule is:

self-review truth = explicit review packet + source anchor

Use /argument-governance first when the manuscript needs a formal intent, contribution, claim, and evidence map.

Codex-Only Baseline

Complete self-review with Codex, the review manifest, allowed sources, and the bundled packet checker. Do not require Gemini, gemini-agent, a second model, or a subagent. If an external review is available, keep it in Reviewer-risk inference or advisory notes and never use it as source support.

If /argument-governance is unavailable, manually extract the same clean-room argument spine from manifest-listed sources only.

Enhanced Advisory Mode

If the manifest and the user explicitly allow an API-key-backed advisory review, Codex may run or incorporate a second-model pass after the clean-room self-review packet is valid.

Rules:

the base clean-room review must be possible without the external call
API keys must be read from environment variables only
the manifest may name api_key_env_var, but must never store the key value
only manifest-approved source subsets may be sent externally
external findings must be placed under Reviewer-risk inference or advisory notes
external findings must be re-grounded against allowed sources before becoming revision actions
unsupported external comments stay unsupported

Core Rules

Use only files listed in the review manifest.
Treat prior chat memory, unstated project assumptions, model background knowledge, and unlisted notes as forbidden evidence.
Split every finding into Supported by packet, Not supported by packet, or Reviewer-risk inference.
Every supported finding must include a source anchor.
Do not repair missing evidence by remembering earlier conversations.
Do not treat generated reviews, agent drafts, or reviewer simulations as final evidence.
Do not edit the manuscript until the user approves specific revision actions.
Do not treat an unavailable external review tool as a blocker.

Required Packet

The preferred layout is:

review_packet/
  review_manifest.yaml
  manuscript.md or manuscript.pdf
  references.bib
  evidence/
  figures/
  tables/
  claims/

Read references/clean_room_protocol.md before reviewing. Read references/self_review_packet_schema.md before creating or validating a packet.

Workflow

1. Validate The Clean-Room Packet

Resolve the bundled helper at scripts/check_self_review_packet.py relative to this SKILL.md, then run:

python3 {skill_dir}/scripts/check_self_review_packet.py review_packet --json

If the packet is missing or invalid, report the issue before reviewing.

2. Build The Source-Bounded Reading List

Read only manifest-listed files. If a needed file is not listed, ask whether to add it to the manifest or mark the issue as unsupported.

3. Extract The Argument Spine

From the packet only, extract:

stated intent
named gap
contributions
main claims
evidence anchors
limitations
reviewer-risk areas

4. Run Self-Review Checks

Check:

gap-contribution alignment
claim hierarchy
claim-evidence fit
evidence balance
unsupported or overextended claims
missing limitations
reviewer attacks with weak defenses
internal consistency and submission blockers

5. Write A Clean-Room Report

The report must separate:

Supported by packet
Not supported by packet
Reviewer-risk inference

Do not merge these categories.

Output Pattern

## Clean-Room Self-Review

### Packet Boundary
- Manifest:
- Allowed sources:
- Forbidden sources:

### Supported By Packet
| Finding | Source anchor | Severity | Action |

### Not Supported By Packet
| Claim or need | Missing source | Risk | Action |

### Reviewer-Risk Inference
| Risk | Basis in packet | Why it matters | Action |

### Revision Actions
| Priority | Action | Requires new evidence? |

Stop Conditions

Stop and report a blocker if:

no review manifest is provided
the user asks to rely on previous chat or memory for evidence
a central claim needs a source not listed in the manifest
the packet validator reports missing allowed files
the user asks to mark unsupported claims as supported