← LeaderboardThe Skill Leaderboard

review-paper

Comprehensive manuscript review covering argument structure, identification strategy, econometric specification, citation completeness, and potential referee objections.

Published by brycewang-stanford ↗brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills

Try your first task

review-paper

Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.

Use review-paper to produce a constructive referee-style review of [paper path], rating argument structure, identification, econometrics, literature, writing, and presentation; include likely referee objections, an overall recommendation, and save the report.

Required inputs

  • [paper path]

User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗

SKILL.md

name: review-paperdescription: Comprehensive manuscript review covering argument structure, identification strategy, econometric specification, citation completeness, and potential referee objections.disable-model-invocation: trueargument-hint: "[paper filename in master_supporting_docs/ or path to .tex/.pdf]"allowed-tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob", "Write", "Task"]

Review Paper

Produce a thorough referee-style review of an academic manuscript.

Steps

  1. Identify the paper: Use $ARGUMENTS. Check master_supporting_docs/supporting_papers/ or the paper folder.

  2. Evaluate across 6 dimensions (rate each 1-5):

    • Argument Structure: Research question clarity, logical flow, evidence support, limitations acknowledged
    • Identification Strategy: Causal claim credibility, identifying assumptions stated, threats discussed, robustness checks proposed
    • Econometric Specification: Standard errors appropriate, functional form justified, sample selection discussed, multiple testing addressed, economic meaningfulness vs statistical significance
    • Literature Positioning: Key citations present, accurate characterization, clear differentiation, missing citations identified
    • Writing Quality: Clarity, tone, notation consistency, abstract quality, self-contained tables/figures
    • Presentation: Table/figure design, notation consistency across sections, typos, paper length

  3. Generate 3-5 likely referee objections with suggested responses.

  4. Overall recommendation: Strong Accept / Accept / Revise & Resubmit / Reject.

  5. Save report to quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md.

Notes

  • Be constructive. Identify strengths alongside weaknesses.
  • Distinguish CRITICAL (math wrong) from MAJOR (missing discussion) from MINOR (could be clearer).