Self-Review

Review an academic paper using a structured review form with multiple reviewer personas.

Input

• $ARGUMENTS — Path to PDF file or .tex file

Scripts

Extract text from PDF

python ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/extract_pdf_text.py paper.pdf --output paper_text.txt
python ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/extract_pdf_text.py paper.pdf --format markdown

Tries pymupdf4llm (best) → pymupdf → pypdf. Install: pip install pymupdf4llm pymupdf pypdf

Parse PDF into structured sections

python ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/parse_pdf_sections.py \
  --pdf paper.pdf --output sections.json

Extracts title (via font size), section headings, and section text. Requires: pip install pymupdf Key flags: --format text, --verbose

Workflow

Step 1: Load Paper

• If PDF: use extract_pdf_text.py to extract text
• If .tex: read the LaTeX source directly

Step 2: Three-Persona Review

Run three independent reviews using different personas (from references/review-form.md):

1. Harsh but fair reviewer: Expects good experiments that lead to insights
2. Harsh and critical reviewer: Looking for impactful ideas in the field
3. Open-minded reviewer: Looking for novel ideas not proposed before

For each persona, generate a review following the NeurIPS review JSON format in references/review-form.md.

Step 3: Reflection Refinement (up to 3 rounds per reviewer)

After each review, apply the reflection prompt: re-evaluate accuracy and soundness, refine if needed. Stop when “I am done”.

Step 4: Aggregate

• Combine all three reviews
• Average numerical scores (round to nearest integer)
• Synthesize a meta-review finding consensus
• Weight scores using AgentLaboratory weights: Overall (1.0), Contribution (0.4), Presentation (0.2), others (0.1 each)

Step 5: Actionable Report

Output format:

## Review Summary
- **Overall Score**: X/10 (Weighted: Y/10)
- **Decision**: Accept / Reject
- **Confidence**: Z/5

## Strengths (consensus across reviewers)
1. ...
2. ...

## Weaknesses (consensus across reviewers)
1. ...
2. ...

## Questions for Authors
1. ...

## Specific Suggestions for Improvement
1. [Section X, Page Y]: ...
2. [Section Z, Page W]: ...

## Score Breakdown
| Dimension | R1 | R2 | R3 | Avg |
|-----------|----|----|-----|-----|
| Overall | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Contribution | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

References

• NeurIPS review form, scoring weights, personas, reflection prompts: ~/.claude/skills/self-review/references/review-form.md
• PDF text extraction: ~/.claude/skills/self-review/scripts/extract_pdf_text.py

Missing Sections Check

You MUST verify that all required sections are present: Abstract, Introduction, Methods/Approach, Experiments/Results, Discussion/Conclusion. Reduce scores if any are missing.

Related Skills

• Upstream: paper-compilation
• Downstream: paper-revision, rebuttal-writing
• See also: slide-generation