{"id":"83c3b19f-0cce-4d32-bee0-b49de58931f6","shortId":"TuBzqv","kind":"skill","title":"academic-reviser","tagline":"Self-review, audit, or verify CS/AI/ML paper drafts as a critical peer reviewer. Three-round review (evidence→argument→style) with Verification Status and debt tracking. Use when: reviewing a paper draft before submission, checking evidence compliance of claims, simulating peer r","description":"# Academic Reviser\n\n将此 skill 视为\"挑剔审稿人代理\"——像 peer reviewer 一样审查自己的草稿，按证据→论证→风格三轮顺序执行检查，并输出可执行的修订与 Verification 判定。\n\n## Red Lines（绝对禁止）\n\n1. 禁止跳过检查顺序：必须证据→论证→风格，不得先修风格再查事实\n2. 禁止输出批评说明后沿用原稿：Revised Draft 必须真正吸收修改点\n3. 禁止在 citation debt / evidence debt / protocol debt / result debt / prose debt / figure debt 未闭合时判为 passed\n4. 禁止删除占位符而不补真实内容\n5. 禁止因草稿篇幅长就假设它足够可信\n6. 禁止用更华丽的写法掩盖内容不足（如 related work 薄用漂亮 prose 包装）\n7. 禁止在 `section_contract_debt` 未闭合时判为 passed；结构性论证缺口不能用 prose_debt closed 替代。\n\n## 非协商规则\n\n1. 代码与方法一致性、实验与表格一致性必须检查。\n2. 修订必须针对性修正，保持 evidence-first 原则：不确定的修正用占位符，不臆造。\n3. 只有满足终止条件时才能标记为 passed；否则输出\"当前最佳版本 + 未闭合问题清单\"。\n4. 遇到自欺信号（只修措辞不修证据、用长度代替可信度）必须主动标记为 failed。\n\n## 任务模式\n\n1. **full-section-review** — 对单个 section 执行完整三轮审查 + Verification\n2. **cross-section-review** — 跨章节一致性检查（摘要 vs 正文 vs 表格 vs 结论）\n3. **verification-only** — 仅执行 Verification 判定（不重做自审）\n4. **targeted-review** — 针对特定问题做定向审查（如仅检查引用闭合）\n5. **targeted-evidence-mode** — 仅执行证据合规审查（由 orchestrator Step 6.5 委托调用）。检查内容：\n   - 每个 claim 是否有对应的 evidence 支撑（Evidence Map 中的 newly_run / preexisting_artifact）\n   - 每个 inline citation 是否对应 Verified References 中已核验条目\n   - 所有占位符使用是否符合规范（如 [REF_NEEDED] 含方向说明）\n   - 是否存在无证据支撑的\"裸 claim\"\n   输出 evidence_debt (open|closed) + evidence_issues 清单，不允许修改正文。\n\n## 工作流\n\n### Step 1: 接收当前草稿与前序状态\n\n确认输入：\n- 当前 section 的 Draft（经过 Expansion Pass 之后的版本）\n- 前序步骤的状态：`prose_debt`、`thin_draft`、`Evidence Map`\n- 若来自 core 的委托，还应收到 `safe_to_continue` 和 `frozen_claims`（若适用）\n\n### Step 2: 第一轮 — 证据与事实检查\n\n详见 `references/revision-checklist.md`，逐项检查 13 项事实性问题。\n\n若任一项失败，先修事实，再谈语言。\n\n### Step 3: 第二轮 — 论证强度与审稿风险检查\n\n详见 `references/revision-checklist.md`。从怀疑者视角提问 11 个审稿风险问题。\n\n对这些问题，要么补证据，要么弱化表述，要么把风险显式写出。\n\n### Step 4: 第三轮 — 结构与风格检查\n\n详见 `references/revision-checklist.md`。只有在前两轮基本通过后，才检查 8 个结构/风格项。\n\n注意：不得把语言润色放在事实检查之前。\n\n### Step 5: 生成 Revised Draft\n\n- 真正吸收 Self-Review 中发现的修改点\n- 不是\"重新生成一遍\"，而是针对性修正后输出\n- 保持 evidence-first 原则：不确定的修正用占位符\n\n### Step 6: 输出 Section Critique 与 Verification Status\n\n详见 `references/verification-status.md`。输出格式遵循 `references/templates/section-critique.md` 中定义的结构。\n\n**Section Critique** 明确：\n- 本节已解决的问题\n- 本节仍缺的证据\n- 本节是否仍存在 formula-heavy / rationale-thin / prose debt 问题\n- 下一节最合理的候选\n\n**Verification Status** 明确：\n- 判定：`passed` / `failed` / `blocked`\n- **Overall Score**: X/10（9-10: 所有 debt 闭合，内容充实; 7-8: 硬 debt 闭合，少量可改进; 5-6: 主要 debt 闭合，中等改进空间; 3-4: 部分 debt 未闭合; 1-2: 多个 debt 未闭合）\n- `prose_debt`: open / closed\n- `section_contract_debt`: open / closed\n- `citation_debt`: open / closed\n- `evidence_debt`: open / closed\n- `figure_debt`: open / closed\n- `thin_draft`: yes / no\n- 本轮实际做了哪些检查\n- 仍未闭合的问题属于可继续自修，还是外部阻塞\n- 若 blocked：`safe_to_continue: yes|no` 和 `frozen_claims`\n\n完整输出示例（passed 和 blocked 场景）见 `references/examples/reviser-output-examples.md`。\n\n## 输出数据格式\n\n输出应按 `references/schemas/verification-report.md` 中定义的 Verification Report Schema 组织。Section Critique 的格式规范见 `references/templates/section-critique.md`。\n\n## Agent 资源\n\n本 Skill 目录下的 `agents/` 文件夹包含以下辅助文件：\n\n| 文件 | 用途 |\n|------|------|\n| `agents/reviser_agent.md` | 三轮审查流程与 Verification 判定规范 |\n\n**使用方式**：由 `academic-paper-writer` 核心编排器在 Step 6.5 和 Step 6.8 委托时，按 `academic-paper-writer/references/orchestration-workflow.md` 中的 dispatch 模板创建工具型子代理执行。**此 agent 只审查论文草稿文本，绝对不得修改项目源代码、配置文件或数据文件，也不得独立撰写论文正文**。\n\n## 独立使用\n\n当本 Skill 被独立加载（不通过 `academic-paper-writer` 编排器）时：\n\n### 典型请求\n- \"帮我审查一下这篇 Introduction 有没有证据缺口\"\n- \"检查这篇文章的引用是否闭合\"\n- \"做一次跨章节一致性检查\"\n- \"帮我看一下草稿的方法与结果是否一致\"\n\n### 入口分流\n\n| 用户输入特征 | 匹配模式 | 优先级 | 行为 |\n|------------|---------|--------|------|\n| 提供单节草稿文本 | full-section-review | 2（文本触发） | 完整三轮审查 + Verification 判定 |\n| 提供多节草稿 + \"一起看\" | cross-section-review | 1（用户显式指定） | 跨章节一致性检查 |\n| 只要求判定（已有自查结果） | verification-only | 1（用户显式指定） | 基于已有信息直接输出 Verdict |\n| 指定检查内容（\"只看引用\"） | targeted-review | 1（用户显式指定） | 仅执行指定维度的检查 |\n| 要求检查证据合规（\"哪些 claim 没证据\"） | targeted-evidence-mode | 1（用户显式指定） | 仅输出 evidence_debt 清单，不修改正文 |\n\n### 执行约束\n- 开始前必须确认：审查范围（哪个/哪些 section）、审查模式、是否已有证据清单\n- 无 `evidence_map` 时从草稿推断：扫描 claim + inline citation，无法推断的标记\"待核验\"\n- 输出：Section Critique + Verification Status（verdict + overall score + 各项 debt）+ Revised Draft\n- **禁止修改草稿以外的项目文件**\n- **必须遵守审查顺序**：证据 → 论证 → 风格\n\n### 组合使用指引\n| 场景 | 推荐方式 |\n|------|---------|\n| 只需审查已有草稿 | 本 Skill（独立） |\n| 起草过程中逐节审查 | academic-paper-writer 编排器（Step 6.5/6.8 自动调度） |\n| 发现缺口后需补实验/引用 | academic-experiments/academic-citation → 回到本 Skill 重审 |\n\n## 何时读取 references/\n\n| Reference 文件 | 打开条件 |\n|---------------|---------|\n| `references/revision-checklist.md` | 执行三轮审查时（Step 2-4） |\n| `references/verification-status.md` | 输出 Verification Status 时（Step 6） |\n| `references/common-pitfalls.md` | 自查是否存在自欺行为时 |\n| `references/schemas/verification-report.md` | 理解输出数据格式 |\n| `references/templates/section-critique.md` | 组织 Section Critique 输出格式 |\n\n## 不适用场景\n\n本 Skill 不适用于：\n- 非学术文体的通用文本审查\n- 需要领域专家知识才能判断的技术正确性（如特定医学诊断逻辑）\n- 仅需拼写/语法检查的场景（应使用 `academic-polishing` 的 de-ai-pass）\n\n## 终止条件\n\n只有以下条件基本满足时，才标记为 passed：\n- 关键主张有对应证据\n- 主要风险已被显式讨论\n- 未核验内容被清楚标记\n- 结果、表格、摘要相互一致\n- style brief 与正文不冲突（若适用）\n- 核心章节不再只是骨架式短稿\n- 无未闭合的 citation debt、protocol debt、result debt、section_contract_debt、prose debt、rationale debt、evidence debt、figure debt\n\n否则，输出\"当前最佳版本 + 未闭合问题清单\"。\n\n## Anti-Patterns\n\n| 模式 | 问题 | 正确做法 |\n|------|------|---------|\n| 顺序颠倒 | 先改语言再查事实 | 必须证据→论证→风格三轮依次执行 |\n| 姑息判决 | 草稿篇幅长就假设足够可信 | 检查核心内容是否充分，不因页数放行 |\n| 伪修订 | 输出批注但不改原稿 | Revised Draft 必须真正吸收全部修改点 |\n| 放水收尾 | 剩余 issues 多仍判 passed | 只有终止条件基本满足时才能判为 passed |","tags":["academic","reviser","paper","writer","joshua-zyy","academic-writing","agent-skills","anthropic-skills","paper-writing","skills"],"capabilities":["skill","source-joshua-zyy","skill-academic-reviser","topic-academic-writing","topic-agent-skills","topic-anthropic-skills","topic-paper-writing","topic-skills"],"categories":["academic-paper-writer"],"synonyms":[],"warnings":[],"endpointUrl":"https://skills.sh/joshua-zyy/academic-paper-writer/academic-reviser","protocol":"skill","transport":"skills-sh","auth":{"type":"none","details":{"cli":"npx skills add joshua-zyy/academic-paper-writer","source_repo":"https://github.com/joshua-zyy/academic-paper-writer","install_from":"skills.sh"}},"qualityScore":"0.453","qualityRationale":"deterministic score 0.45 from registry signals: · indexed on github topic:agent-skills · 7 github stars · SKILL.md body (5,365 chars)","verified":false,"liveness":"unknown","lastLivenessCheck":null,"agentReviews":{"count":0,"score_avg":null,"cost_usd_avg":null,"success_rate":null,"latency_p50_ms":null,"narrative_summary":null,"summary_updated_at":null},"enrichmentModel":"deterministic:skill-github:v1","enrichmentVersion":1,"enrichedAt":"2026-05-18T19:14:18.979Z","embedding":null,"createdAt":"2026-05-18T13:21:57.958Z","updatedAt":"2026-05-18T19:14:18.979Z","lastSeenAt":"2026-05-18T19:14:18.979Z","tsv":"'-10':355 '-2':378 '-4':373,624 '-6':367 '-8':361 '/6.8':604 '/academic-citation':611 '/references/orchestration-workflow.md':470 '1':66,118,143,229,377,519,527,536,547 '11':277 '13':265 '2':72,121,152,259,508,623 '3':77,130,165,271,372 '4':93,136,173,284 '5':95,179,297,366 '6':97,316,631 '6.5':188,460,603 '6.8':463 '7':105,360 '8':291 '9':354 'academ':2,47,455,467,486,598,609,652 'academic-experi':608 'academic-paper-writ':454,466,485,597 'academic-polish':651 'academic-revis':1 'agent':439,444,475 'agents/reviser_agent.md':448 'ai':657 'anti':697 'anti-pattern':696 'argument':23 'artifact':202 'audit':7 'block':350,411,423 'brief':670 'check':39 'citat':79,205,391,569,675 'claim':43,192,217,256,419,541,567 'close':115,222,385,390,394,398,402 'complianc':41 'continu':253,414 'contract':108,387,682 'core':248 'critic':15 'critiqu':319,329,436,574,639 'cross':154,516 'cross-section-review':153,515 'cs/ai/ml':10 'de':656 'de-ai-pass':655 'debt':29,80,82,84,86,88,90,109,114,220,242,341,357,363,369,375,380,383,388,392,396,400,551,581,676,678,680,683,685,687,689,691 'dispatch':472 'draft':12,36,75,235,244,300,404,583,714 'evid':22,40,81,125,182,194,196,219,223,245,311,395,545,550,563,688 'evidence-first':124,310 'expans':237 'experi':610 'fail':141,349 'figur':89,399,690 'first':126,312 'formula':335 'formula-heavi':334 'frozen':255,418 'full':145,505 'full-section-review':144,504 'heavi':336 'inlin':204,568 'introduct':493 'issu':224,718 'line':64 'map':197,246,564 'mode':183,546 'need':213 'newli':199 'open':221,384,389,393,397,401 'orchestr':186 'overal':351,578 'paper':11,35,456,468,487,599 'pass':92,111,132,238,348,421,658,662,720,722 'pattern':698 'peer':16,45,54 'polish':653 'preexist':201 'prose':87,103,113,241,340,382,684 'protocol':83,677 'r':46 'rational':338,686 'rationale-thin':337 'red':63 'ref':212 'refer':208,616,617 'references/common-pitfalls.md':632 'references/examples/reviser-output-examples.md':426 'references/revision-checklist.md':263,275,288,620 'references/schemas/verification-report.md':429,634 'references/templates/section-critique.md':326,438,636 'references/verification-status.md':324,625 'relat':100 'report':432 'result':85,679 'review':6,17,21,33,55,147,156,176,304,507,518,535 'revis':3,48,74,299,582,713 'round':20 'run':200 'safe':251,412 'schema':433 'score':352,579 'section':107,146,149,155,233,318,328,386,435,506,517,559,573,638,681 'self':5,303 'self-review':4,302 'simul':44 'skill':50,442,482,594,613,643 'skill-academic-reviser' 'source-joshua-zyy' 'status':27,322,345,576,628 'step':187,228,258,270,283,296,315,459,462,602,622,630 'style':24,669 'submiss':38 'target':175,181,534,544 'targeted-evidence-mod':180,543 'targeted-review':174,533 'thin':243,339,403 'three':19 'three-round':18 'topic-academic-writing' 'topic-agent-skills' 'topic-anthropic-skills' 'topic-paper-writing' 'topic-skills' 'track':30 'use':31 'verdict':530,577 'verif':26,61,151,167,170,321,344,431,450,511,525,575,627 'verifi':9,207 'verification-on':166,524 'vs':159,161,163 'work':101 'writer':457,469,488,600 'x/10':353 'yes':405,415 '一样审查自己的草稿':56 '一起看':514 '三轮审查流程与':449 '下一节最合理的候选':343 '不修改正文':553 '不允许修改正文':226 '不因页数放行':710 '不得先修风格再查事实':71 '不得把语言润色放在事实检查之前':295 '不是':306 '不确定的修正用占位符':128,314 '不臆造':129 '不适用于':644 '不适用场景':641 '不通过':484 '不重做自审':172 '与':320 '与正文不冲突':671 '个审稿风险问题':278 '个结构':292 '中发现的修改点':305 '中定义的':430 '中定义的结构':327 '中已核验条目':209 '中的':198,471 '中等改进空间':371 '主要':368 '主要风险已被显式讨论':664 '之后的版本':239 '也不得独立撰写论文正文':479 '仅执行':169 '仅执行指定维度的检查':538 '仅执行证据合规审查':184 '仅输出':549 '仅需拼写':648 '仍未闭合的问题属于可继续自修':408 '从怀疑者视角提问':276 '代码与方法一致性':119 '任务模式':142 '优先级':501 '伪修订':711 '何时读取':615 '使用方式':452 '保持':123,309 '修订必须针对性修正':122 '做一次跨章节一致性检查':496 '像':53 '先修事实':268 '先改语言再查事实':703 '入口分流':498 '关键主张有对应证据':663 '典型请求':491 '内容充实':359 '再谈语言':269 '判定':62,171,347,512 '判定规范':451 '前序步骤的状态':240 '剩余':717 '包装':104 '匹配模式':500 '原则':127,313 '发现缺口后需补实验':606 '只修措辞不修证据':138 '只审查论文草稿文本':476 '只有以下条件基本满足时':660 '只有在前两轮基本通过后':289 '只有满足终止条件时才能标记为':131 '只有终止条件基本满足时才能判为':721 '只看引用':532 '只要求判定':522 '只需审查已有草稿':592 '各项':580 '否则':692 '否则输出':133 '含方向说明':214 '和':254,417,422,461 '哪个':557 '哪些':540,558 '回到本':612 '场景':424,590 '基于已有信息直接输出':529 '多个':379 '多仍判':719 '如':99,211 '如仅检查引用闭合':178 '如特定医学诊断逻辑':647 '姑息判决':707 '委托时':464 '委托调用':189 '完整三轮审查':510 '完整输出示例':420 '实验与表格一致性必须检查':120 '审查模式':560 '审查范围':556 '对单个':148 '对这些问题':279 '将此':49 '少量可改进':365 '工作流':227 '已有自查结果':523 '帮我审查一下这篇':492 '帮我看一下草稿的方法与结果是否一致':497 '并输出可执行的修订与':60 '应使用':650 '开始前必须确认':555 '引用':607 '当前':232 '当前最佳版本':134,694 '当本':481 '待核验':571 '必须主动标记为':140 '必须真正吸收修改点':76 '必须真正吸收全部修改点':715 '必须证据':68,704 '必须遵守审查顺序':585 '所有':356 '所有占位符使用是否符合规范':210 '才标记为':661 '才检查':290 '打开条件':619 '执行三轮审查时':621 '执行完整三轮审查':150 '执行约束':554 '扫描':566 '指定检查内容':531 '按':465 '按证据':57 '挑剔审稿人代理':52 '接收当前草稿与前序状态':230 '推荐方式':591 '提供单节草稿文本':503 '提供多节草稿':513 '摘要':158 '摘要相互一致':668 '支撑':195 '放水收尾':716 '文件':446,618 '文件夹包含以下辅助文件':445 '文本触发':509 '无':562 '无未闭合的':674 '无法推断的标记':570 '时':490,629 '时从草稿推断':565 '明确':330,346 '是否存在无证据支撑的':215 '是否对应':206 '是否已有证据清单':561 '是否有对应的':193 '替代':116 '有没有证据缺口':494 '未核验内容被清楚标记':665 '未闭合':376,381 '未闭合时判为':91,110 '未闭合问题清单':135,695 '本':441,593,642 '本节仍缺的证据':332 '本节已解决的问题':331 '本节是否仍存在':333 '本轮实际做了哪些检查':407 '核心章节不再只是骨架式短稿':673 '核心编排器在':458 '检查内容':190 '检查核心内容是否充分':709 '检查这篇文章的引用是否闭合':495 '模式':699 '模板创建工具型子代理执行':473 '正文':160 '正确做法':701 '此':474 '每个':191,203 '没证据':542 '注意':294 '清单':225,552 '独立':595 '独立使用':480 '理解输出数据格式':635 '生成':298 '用户显式指定':520,528,537,548 '用户输入特征':499 '用途':447 '用长度代替可信度':139 '由':185,453 '的':234,654 '的委托':249 '的格式规范见':437 '目录下的':443 '真正吸收':301 '硬':362 '确认输入':231 '禁止修改草稿以外的项目文件':584 '禁止删除占位符而不补真实内容':94 '禁止因草稿篇幅长就假设它足够可信':96 '禁止在':78,106 '禁止用更华丽的写法掩盖内容不足':98 '禁止跳过检查顺序':67 '禁止输出批评说明后沿用原稿':73 '第一轮':260 '第三轮':285 '第二轮':272 '组合使用指引':589 '组织':434,637 '终止条件':659 '经过':236 '结构与风格检查':286 '结构性论证缺口不能用':112 '结果':666 '结论':164 '绝对不得修改项目源代码':477 '绝对禁止':65 '编排器':489,601 '而是针对性修正后输出':308 '自动调度':605 '自查是否存在自欺行为时':633 '若':410 '若任一项失败':267 '若来自':247 '若适用':257,672 '草稿篇幅长就假设足够可信':708 '薄用漂亮':102 '行为':502 '表格':162,667 '被独立加载':483 '裸':216 '要么弱化表述':281 '要么把风险显式写出':282 '要么补证据':280 '要求检查证据合规':539 '见':425 '视为':51 '论证':58,69,587,705 '论证强度与审稿风险检查':273 '证据':586 '证据与事实检查':261 '详见':262,274,287,323 '语法检查的场景':649 '资源':440 '起草过程中逐节审查':596 '跨章节一致性检查':157,521 '输出':218,317,572,626,693 '输出应按':428 '输出批注但不改原稿':712 '输出数据格式':427 '输出格式':640 '输出格式遵循':325 '还应收到':250 '还是外部阻塞':409 '逐项检查':264 '遇到自欺信号':137 '部分':374 '配置文件或数据文件':478 '重审':614 '重新生成一遍':307 '针对特定问题做定向审查':177 '闭合':358,364,370 '问题':342,700 '需要领域专家知识才能判断的技术正确性':646 '非协商规则':117 '非学术文体的通用文本审查':645 '项事实性问题':266 '顺序颠倒':702 '风格':70,588 '风格三轮依次执行':706 '风格三轮顺序执行检查':59 '风格项':293","prices":[{"id":"3ba4a2fd-cd89-48b9-9f28-be9698d3aef1","listingId":"83c3b19f-0cce-4d32-bee0-b49de58931f6","amountUsd":"0","unit":"free","nativeCurrency":null,"nativeAmount":null,"chain":null,"payTo":null,"paymentMethod":"skill-free","isPrimary":true,"details":{"org":"joshua-zyy","category":"academic-paper-writer","install_from":"skills.sh"},"createdAt":"2026-05-18T13:21:57.958Z"}],"sources":[{"listingId":"83c3b19f-0cce-4d32-bee0-b49de58931f6","source":"github","sourceId":"joshua-zyy/academic-paper-writer/academic-reviser","sourceUrl":"https://github.com/joshua-zyy/academic-paper-writer/tree/main/skills/academic-reviser","isPrimary":false,"firstSeenAt":"2026-05-18T13:21:57.958Z","lastSeenAt":"2026-05-18T19:14:18.979Z"}],"details":{"listingId":"83c3b19f-0cce-4d32-bee0-b49de58931f6","quickStartSnippet":null,"exampleRequest":null,"exampleResponse":null,"schema":null,"openapiUrl":null,"agentsTxtUrl":null,"citations":[],"useCases":[],"bestFor":[],"notFor":[],"kindDetails":{"org":"joshua-zyy","slug":"academic-reviser","github":{"repo":"joshua-zyy/academic-paper-writer","stars":7,"topics":["academic-writing","agent-skills","anthropic-skills","paper-writing","skills"],"license":"mit","html_url":"https://github.com/joshua-zyy/academic-paper-writer","pushed_at":"2026-05-18T03:40:09Z","description":"面向 CS / AI / ML 领域的证据驱动、分节推进的论文写作 Agent Skill。","skill_md_sha":"8ef1c77df59802fbba6d3bf6ed58374089209c52","skill_md_path":"skills/academic-reviser/SKILL.md","default_branch":"main","skill_tree_url":"https://github.com/joshua-zyy/academic-paper-writer/tree/main/skills/academic-reviser"},"layout":"multi","source":"github","category":"academic-paper-writer","frontmatter":{"name":"academic-reviser","description":"Self-review, audit, or verify CS/AI/ML paper drafts as a critical peer reviewer. Three-round review (evidence→argument→style) with Verification Status and debt tracking. Use when: reviewing a paper draft before submission, checking evidence compliance of claims, simulating peer reviewer feedback, verifying citation closure and evidence debts, performing cross-section consistency checks. Triggers on: 审修, self review, 自查, verification, revise, 修订, check draft, 审稿, evidence compliance, peer review, 论文审查, draft audit, 验证论文, 检查引用, cross-section review."},"skills_sh_url":"https://skills.sh/joshua-zyy/academic-paper-writer/academic-reviser"},"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T19:14:18.979Z"}}