Skill: andyrenxu7255/academic-paper-reviewer (version 1.0.4)

--- name: academic-paper-reviewer description: "7-agent paper review system on Hermes Agent. 6 modes (full/re-review/quick/methodology-focus/guided/calibration). 5-panel review with editorial decision, revision roadmap, and calibration metrics. Uses delegate_task for each reviewer. Triggers: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, check revisions, calibrate reviewer, 審稿, 同儕審查, 論文審查." metadata: version: "1.0-hermes-1.0" last_updated: "2026-05-16" status: active adapted_from: [REDACTED_SECRET] adapted_for: "Hermes Agent (deepseek-v4-pro)" task_type: open-ended license: "CC BY-NC 4.0" original_author: "Cheng-I Wu" original_license: "CC BY-NC 4.0" original_repo: "https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills" copyright: "Copyright (c) 2026 Cheng-I Wu" --- # Academic Paper Reviewer — 7-Agent Review System (Hermes Edition) 📄 **License:** [CC BY-NC 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) · Copyright (c) 2026 Cheng-I Wu 🔗 **Original:** [Imbad0202/academic-research-skills](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills) 🔄 **Adaptation:** Multi-agent review system implemented via `delegate_task` instead of Claude Code's internal agent system. All agent definitions, references, and quality standards preserved unchanged from original. **This adaptation is distributed under the same CC BY-NC 4.0 license.** ## Quick Start ``` Review this paper for journal submission ``` ## Agent Team | # | Agent | Role | |---|-------|------| | 1 | intake_agent | Receive paper, determine review type | | 2 | methodology_reviewer | Method rigor assessment | | 3 | evidence_reviewer | Evidence sufficiency & citation quality | | 4 | argument_reviewer | Logical coherence & argument structure | | 5 | domain_reviewer | Domain expertise & literature positioning | | 6 | editor_in_chief | Aggregate reviews → editorial decision | | 7 | revision_coach | Convert reviews → actionable roadmap | ## Hermes Execution ### Full Mode: 5-Panel Parallel Review ``` delegate_task(tasks=[ {"goal": "Review manuscript methodology: design appropriateness, validity threats, replicability. Score 1-5.", "context": "Use agents/methodology_reviewer.md", "toolsets": ["file"]}, {"goal": "Review evidence: citation quality, source credibility, evidence hierarchy alignment. Score 1-5.", "context": "Use agents/evidence_reviewer.md", "toolsets": ["file"]}, {"goal": "Review argument: logical flow, claim-evidence alignment, counter-argument handling. Score 1-5.", "context": "Use agents/argument_reviewer.md", "toolsets": ["file"]}, {"goal": "Review domain positioning: literature coverage, theoretical grounding, contribution significance. Score 1-5.", "context": "Use agents/domain_reviewer.md", "toolsets": ["file"]} ]) ``` ### Editorial Decision ``` delegate_task(goal="Aggregate all 4 reviewer reports. Apply weighted scoring (Method 30%, Evidence 25%, Argument 25%, Domain 20%). Issue editorial decision: Accept/Minor Revision/Major Revision/Reject with justification.", context="Use agents/editor_in_chief.md", toolsets=["file"]) ``` ### Revision Roadmap ``` delegate_task(goal="Convert editorial decision + reviewer reports into structured Revision Roadmap: prioritized action items, estimated effort, dependency mapping.", context="Use agents/revision_coach.md", toolsets=["file"]) ``` ## 6 Modes | Mode | Trigger | Agents | |------|---------|--------| | `full` | "Review paper" | All 7 | | `re-review` | "Check revisions" | 2→3→4→6 | | `quick` | "Quick review" | 6 only (EIC assessment) | | `methodology-focus` | "Check methodology" | 2 only | | `guided` | "Guide me to improve" | Socratic: 6 with user interaction | | `calibration` | "Calibrate reviewer" | All + calibration metrics output | ## Calibration Mode Measures reviewer accuracy: FNR (False Negative Rate), FPR (False Positive Rate), AUC. Requires ground-truth labels on prior reviewed papers. ## Critical Rules 1. ⚠️ Reviewers are paper-blind (don't see author info) 2. ⚠️ Every criticism must include specific actionable suggestion 3. ⚠️ Calibration mode requires 5+ ground-truth papers ## Security & Privacy **Multi-agent design disclosure:** This skill delegates review tasks across multiple subagents via `delegate_task`. Manuscript content and intermediate review outputs are processed by these agents. Use only with manuscripts you are comfortable having processed through the AI provider's delegated-agent workflow. Remove confidential material not needed for review. **Tool access:** Subagents are granted only `file` tools for reading/writing review outputs. No terminal, web, or system tools are exposed. **Agent files:** The `agents/` directory contains academic peer-review prompt templates (role definitions, scoring rubrics, methodology guidelines). These are task instructions loaded as `context` in `delegate_task` calls — NOT system prompt overrides.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: suspicious | static analysis: suspicious | VirusTotal:  | SkillSpector: suspicious (MEDIUM)