ppw:reviewer-simulation

ppw:reviewer-simulation is a skill for Claude Code from Lylll9436/Paper-Polish-Workflow-skill. It costs 53 tokens per session (3,222 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A peer-review simulator that assesses a research paper and produces a structured bilingual report. Peer review is the process in which researchers evaluate work before publication.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to rehearse review of a paper, score its main qualities, identify major and minor issues, and receive a recommendation for a specified journal.
Why use it?
It helps reveal weaknesses that could affect acceptance, including problems with originality, methods, writing, presentation, or significance. Each concern includes why it matters and a suggested fix.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin. Also seen: names the AskUserQuestion tool.

Part of the paper-polish-workflow plugin — 16 skills shipped together

Good fit Use it to rehearse review of a paper, score its main qualities, identify major and minor issues, and receive a recommendation for a specified journal.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/lylll9436/paper-polish-workflow-skill/ppw-reviewer-simulation
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.

Any agent
npx skills add Lylll9436/Paper-Polish-Workflow-skill --skill ppw-reviewer-simulation
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Lylll9436/Paper-Polish-Workflow-skill

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install paper-polish-workflow, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 16 skills.

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 ppw:reviewer-simulation

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lylll9436/paper-polish-workflow-skill/ppw-reviewer-simulation/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/lylll9436/paper-polish-workflow-skill/ppw-reviewer-simulation)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lylll9436/paper-polish-workflow-skill/ppw-reviewer-simulation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lylll9436/paper-polish-workflow-skill/ppw-reviewer-simulation/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 ppw:reviewer-simulation

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lylll9436/paper-polish-workflow-skill/ppw-reviewer-simulation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lylll9436/paper-polish-workflow-skill/ppw-reviewer-simulation.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 53 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 3,222 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 $0.00053 $0.03222
Opus 5 $0.00026 $0.01611
Sonnet 5 $0.00011 $0.00644
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00322

Measured 11d ago against content hash f8bfce0b8c30, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-11, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

ppw:reviewer-simulation 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 11d 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/ppw-reviewer-simulation/SKILL.md · 285 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 285 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Purpose

This Skill simulates peer review of academic papers, producing a structured bilingual review report. It assesses the paper across five dimensions (Novelty, Methodology, Writing Quality, Presentation, Significance) with 1-10 scoring, identifies major and minor concerns with actionable three-part feedback (problem, why it matters, suggestion), and delivers a verdict recommendation. When a target journal is specified, journal-specific expectations are woven into review comments. The report follows real journal review conventions and includes inline Chinese translations for every concern and the verdict.

Core Prompt

Source: awesome-ai-research-writing — 论文整体以 Reviewer 视角进行审视

# Role
你是一位以严苛、精准著称的资深学术审稿人,熟悉计算机科学领域顶级会议的评审标准。你的职责是作为守门员,确保只有在理论创新、实验严谨性和逻辑自洽性上均达到最高标准的研究才能被接收。

# Task
请深入阅读并分析我上传的【PDF论文文件】。基于我指定的【投稿目标】,撰写一份严厉但具有建设性的审稿报告。

# Constraints
1. 评审基调(严苛模式):
   - 默认态度:请抱着拒稿的预设心态进行审查,除非论文的亮点足以说服你改变主意。
   - 拒绝客套:省略所有无关痛痒的赞美,直接切入核心缺陷。你的目标是帮作者发现可能导致拒稿的致命伤,而不是让作者开心。

2. 审查维度:
   - 原创性:该工作是实质性的突破还是边际增量?如果是后者,直接指出。
   - 严谨性:数学推导是否有跳跃?实验对比是否公平(Baseline 是否齐全)?消融实验是否充分支撑了核心主张?
   - 一致性:引言中声称的贡献在实验部分是否真的得到了验证?

3. 格式要求:
   - 严禁列表化滥用:在陈述复杂逻辑时,请使用连贯段落。
   - 保持 LaTeX 纯净:不要使用无关的格式指令。

4. 输出格式:
   - Part 1 [The Review Report]:模拟真实的顶会审稿意见(使用中文)。包含以下板块:
     * Summary: 一句话总结文章核心。
     * Strengths: 简要列出 1-2 点真正有价值的贡献。
     * Weaknesses (Critical): 必须列出 3-5 个可能导致直接拒稿的致命问题(如:缺乏核心 Baseline,原理存在逻辑漏洞,创新点被过度包装)。
     * Rating: 给出预估评分(1-10分,其中 Top 5% 为 8分以上)。
   - Part 2 [Strategic Advice]:针对作者的中文改稿建议。
     * 直击痛点:用中文解释 Part 1 中的 Critical Weaknesses 到底因何而起。
     * 行动指南:具体建议作者该补什么实验、该重写哪段逻辑、或该如何降低审稿人的攻击欲。
   - 除以上两部分外,不要输出任何多余的对话。

# Execution Protocol
在输出前,请自查:
1. 你的语气是否太温和了?如果是,请重新审视那些模糊的实验结果,并提出尖锐的质疑。
2. 你指出的问题是否具体?不要说"实验不够",要说"缺少在 ImageNet 数据集上的鲁棒性验证"。

Trigger

Activates when the user asks to:

  • Review, peer-review, or simulate reviewer feedback for a paper
  • 审稿、模拟评审、模拟审稿人反馈

Example invocations:

  • "Review this paper" / "审稿这篇论文"
  • "Give me a peer review of my draft" / "模拟评审我的论文"
  • "Simulate a reviewer for my CEUS submission"
  • "帮我做一个模拟审稿"

Read the full file on GitHub · 285 lines

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. 11d ago First seen · 285 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A f8bfce0b8c30

Subscribe to this mod's changes

ppw:reviewer-simulation is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lylll9436/Paper-Polish-Workflow-skill (386 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 3,222 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 2026-08-30.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.

obra/superpowers · 21 tokens

local-ai-agents

Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…

microsoft/ai-agents-for-beginners · 200 tokens

next-cache-components-adoption

Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…

vercel/next.js · 95 tokens

insight-error-page

Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…

vercel/next.js · 83 tokens

next-cache-components-optimizer

Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…

vercel/next.js · 170 tokens

next-partial-prefetching-adoption

Turn on Partial Prefetching in a Next.js app and work through the insights it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable or adopt Partial Prefetching, flip the partialPrefetching flag, opt routes in with export const prefetch = 'partial', audit Link prefetch={true} behavior, preserve existing prefetched UI with…

vercel/next.js · 103 tokens