review-paper

review-paper is a command for Claude Code from AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab-Academic-Skills. It costs 51 tokens per session (345 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A command that runs a structured review of a manuscript from an editor, several peer reviewers, and a critic who challenges its main argument.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to assess a paper’s methods, subject matter, practical relevance, logic, and readiness for publication.
Why use it?
It gathers different kinds of feedback and turns them into one prioritized revision plan.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter.

Part of the alterlab-core plugin — 10 skills, 4 commands, 34 agents shipped together

Good fit Use it to assess a paper’s methods, subject matter, practical relevance, logic, and readiness for publication.

Compare 6 commands from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/review-paper
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab-Academic-Skills

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install alterlab-core, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 10 skills, 4 commands, 34 agents.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for review-paper

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/review-paper/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/review-paper)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/review-paper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/review-paper/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for review-paper

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/review-paper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/review-paper.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 51 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 345 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00051 $0.00345
Opus 5 $0.00026 $0.00172
Sonnet 5 $0.00010 $0.00069
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00034

Measured 9d ago against content hash 7666b2d83a62, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review-paper scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

skills/core/alterlab-paper-reviewer/commands/review-paper.md · 31 lines

What it actually says

Review the paper: $ARGUMENTS

Use the alterlab-paper-reviewer skill in full review mode.

Steps:

  1. Identify the field and configure the 5-member review team (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate), each covering a non-overlapping perspective: methodology, domain expertise, cross-disciplinary viewpoint, and core-argument challenge.
  2. Review — Each reviewer produces specific, line-referenced comments against the review-criteria framework and statistical-reporting standards. The Devil's Advocate actively hunts logical fallacies and the strongest counter-arguments.
  3. Synthesize — The Editor-in-Chief reconciles the reviews into one structured Editorial Decision (accept / minor / major / reject) and a prioritized Revision Roadmap.
  4. Output — A peer-review report plus the editorial decision, using the skill's templates.

If no manuscript was provided in $ARGUMENTS, ask for the file or text first.

To verify the manuscript's citations before or after review, hand off to /cite-check. For the full research-to-publication workflow, use /research-pipeline.

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 31 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 7666b2d83a62

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-paper is a command published in the GitHub repository AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab-Academic-Skills (66 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 345 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.