@besser/research-paper-review 1.0.0

package/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+# research-paper-review
+
+An AI agent skill for systematic academic paper review.
+
+## What It Does
+
+When you share a research paper (PDF, LaTeX, or plain text), this skill guides the agent through a structured review process:
+
+1. **Venue context** — Adapts the review to the target conference/journal standards
+2. **Structured summary** — Problem, contributions, methodology, results, limitations
+3. **Numerical & consistency checks** — Cross-references numbers across text, tables, and figures; verifies statistics, acronyms, terminology, and citations
+4. **Critical analysis** — Evaluates novelty, soundness, significance, clarity, reproducibility, and venue alignment
+5. **Actionable feedback** — Strengths, weaknesses, questions, minor issues, and venue-specific recommendations
+6. **Top 10 actions** — Prioritized by impact-to-effort ratio so authors know where to start
+
+## Installation
+
+### Option A: Agent skills CLI (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, Windsurf, etc.)
+
+```bash
+npx skills add BESSER-PEARL/agent-skills@research-paper-review
+```
+
+This auto-installs the skill into your local agent. It activates automatically when you share a paper.
+
+### Option B: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any other AI chat
+
+No installation needed. Just:
+
+1. Copy the contents of [SKILL.md](./SKILL.md)
+2. Paste it as:
+   - **ChatGPT** → Custom Instructions or start of conversation
+   - **Claude.ai** → Project Knowledge or start of conversation
+   - **Gemini** → Gems or start of conversation
+3. Upload your paper (PDF) and ask for a review
+
+> **Tip:** For best results, paste the SKILL.md content first, then upload the paper and write:
+> *"Review this paper for [VENUE] as a [TYPE] submission."*
+
+## Usage
+
+Share a paper with the agent and optionally specify the venue and paper type:
+
+```
+Review this paper for ICWE 2026 as a tool demo submission.
+```
+
+```
+Check this PDF for numerical inconsistencies and broken references.
+```
+
+```
+Give me pre-submission feedback on our TOSEM journal paper.
+```
+
+The agent will fetch venue-specific guidelines when available and produce a review following the output template in [SKILL.md](./SKILL.md).
+
+## Supported Formats
+
+- PDF files (read page by page)
+- LaTeX source (`.tex` files, follows `\input` / `\include` commands)
+- Plain text / markdown
+
+## Authors
+
+- [Armen Sulejmani](https://github.com/armensulejmani)
+- [Ivan David Alfonso](https://github.com/ivan-alfonso)
+- [Jordi Cabot](https://github.com/jcabot)
+
+Part of the [BESSER-PEARL](https://github.com/BESSER-PEARL) project at the Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology.

package/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+---
+name: research-paper-review
+description: Review and analyze academic research papers. Use this skill when the user asks to review a paper, analyze a publication, summarize research, critique methodology, extract key findings, compare papers, check for numerical inconsistencies, or assess novelty and contributions of academic work. Also triggers when the user mentions reading a PDF of a paper, wants a literature review, asks about related work, or wants to improve a paper before submission.
+---
+
+# Research Paper Review
+
+Assist researchers in reviewing, analyzing, and criticizing academic papers systematically and thoroughly.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- User asks to review, summarize, or critique a research paper
+- User shares a PDF or link to an academic paper
+- User wants to assess methodology, contributions, or novelty
+- User needs help writing a peer review
+- User wants to compare multiple papers or do a literature survey
+- User wants to improve a paper before submission (pre-submission review)
+- User wants to check for numerical/statistical inconsistencies
+- User wants venue-specific feedback (conference, journal, or preprint)
+
+## Inputs
+
+- Paper content: PDF, LaTeX source, or plaint text
+- Target Venue (optional but recommended): conference, journal, or preprint target
+               - Example: "Models 2026", "TOSEM", "Sosym", "arXiv preprint"
+- Type of paper (optional but recommended): "full research" paper, "short" paper, "new ideas" paper, "tool demo", "poster",...
+- Explicit reviewing guidelines (optinoal): if available provide a description or URL with the reviewing criteria.
+
+## Review Workflow
+
+###Step 0: Pre-Processing / Venue Context
+
+- If target venue and/or the type of paper are provided, include them as context for all subsequent steps:
+
+> “Review this paper as if it is intended for [TARGET VENUE] as a [TYPE PAPER] submission. Consider typical standards, expectations, page limits, scope, and audience for this venue and type of paper”
+
+- Optional: Use the provided reviewing guidelines or try to find them on the venue website (if available) with standards for methodology, novelty, empirical rigor, validation and formatting. 
+
+### Step 1: Read the Paper
+
+Identify the format and read accordingly:
+
+- **PDF**: Use the Read tool with the `pages` parameter for large documents (max 20 pages per request).
+- **LaTeX source**: Read the main `.tex` file first. Look for `\input{}` or `\include{}` commands to find additional sections, figures, and bibliography files. Use Grep to search for key commands like `\begin{abstract}`, `\section`, `\cite` across all `.tex` files.
+- **Multiple files**: Use Glob with `**/*.tex` to find all source files, then read them in logical order (main file → sections → appendix).
+
+In all cases, skim the abstract, introduction, and conclusion first to get the big picture before diving into details.
+
+### Step 2: Structured Summary
+
+Show that you understand the paper by producing a summary covering:
+
+1. **Problem Statement** — What problem does the paper address? Why does it matter?
+2. **Contributions** — What are the claimed contributions? (list them)
+3. **Approach/Methodology** — How do the authors solve the problem?
+4. **Key Results** — What are the main findings/metrics?
+5. **Limitations** — What are the acknowledged (and unacknowledged) limitations?
+
+
+### Step 3: Numerical & Consistency Checks   - most info from linkedin
+
+This is where LLM-assisted review adds the most value, catching things humans easily miss during manual review. Run these checks systematically:
+
+- **Numbers across text, tables, and figures**: Do values reported in the text match what's in the tables? Do figures reflect the data described?
+- **Statistical consistency**: Do p-values, confidence intervals, and effect sizes align? Are sample sizes consistent throughout?
+- **Calculations**: Verify percentages, averages, sums. Check that reported improvements (e.g., "30% improvement") match the actual numbers.
+- **Internal references**: Do all \ref, \cite, figure/table references resolve? Are there dangling references or wrong numbering?
+- **Acronyms**: Are all acronyms defined on first use?
+- **Terminology consistency**: Is the same concept always referred to with the same term?
+- **Citations**: Do all citations exist? Is citation style uniform (i.e. all conference papers are cited using the same fields, same for other venues) 
+
+Even minor errors (typos, broken references, wrong numbering) matter. reviewers often use these as signals that the paper was not carefully prepared.
+
+### Step 4: Critical Analysis
+
+Evaluate the paper on these dimensions:
+
+| Dimension | Questions to Answer |
+|-----------|-------------------|
+| **Novelty** | Is this genuinely new? How does it differ from prior work? |
+| **Soundness** | Is the methodology rigorous? Are experiments well-designed? |
+| **Significance** | Does this advance the field meaningfully? |
+| **Clarity** | Is the paper well-written and well-structured? |
+| **Reproducibility** | Could someone replicate this work from the paper alone? |
+| **Related Work** | Is the positioning against prior work fair and complete? |
+| **Venue Alignment** | Does the paper meet expectations of the target venue (scope, depth, format, length, contribution type)? |
+
+
+### Step 5: Provide Actionable Feedback
+
+Structure feedback as:
+
+- **Strengths** — What the paper does well (be specific, cite sections)
+- **Weaknesses** — What could be improved (be constructive, suggest fixes)
+- **Questions for Authors** — Things that need clarification
+- **Minor Issues** — Typos, formatting, citation issues, broken references
+- **Venue-Specific Recommendations** — Highlight alignment issues, potential improvements to meet venue expectations
+
+### Step 6: Start here
+
+Write down a list of the top 10 most immediate actions that the author should address. 
+
+These should be the ones that will bring the best "bang for the buck", i.e. actions that generate the most benefit relative to the cost of implementing them.
+
+
+## Output Format
+
+Use this template for the review:
+
+```markdown
+# Paper Review: [Title]
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 paragraph summary]
+
+## Strengths
+- S1: ...
+- S2: ...
+
+## Weaknesses
+- W1: ...
+- W2: ...
+
+## Questions for Authors
+- Q1: ...
+
+## Minor Issues
+- ...
+
+## Venue-Specific Recommendations
+- V1: ...
+- V2: ...
+
+## Overall Assessment
+[1 paragraph verdict: accept/revise/reject with justification]
+
+## Top actions . Start here
+- T1: ...
+- T2: ...
+
+
+## Confidence
+[Your confidence level in this review: low/medium/high, and why]
+```

package/package.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "name": "@besser/research-paper-review",
+  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "description": "Review and analyze academic research papers — consistency checks, structured critique, venue-specific feedback, pre-submission review",
+  "author": "BESSER-PEARL",
+  "contributors": [
+    "Armen Sulejmani",
+    "Ivan David Alfonso",
+    "Jordi Cabot"
+  ],
+  "keywords": [
+    "skill",
+    "research",
+    "paper-review",
+    "academic",
+    "peer-review",
+    "literature-review",
+    "pre-submission",
+    "numerical-consistency"
+  ],
+  "license": "MIT"
+}