Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
By Imbad0202
Simulates a complete multi-perspective academic peer review with a structured editorial panel—Editor-in-Chief, domain experts, Devil's Advocate, and cross-disciplinary reviewers—to produce unified decision letters and prioritized revision roadmaps for academic papers.
npx claudepluginhub lkcy23/claudespace --plugin academic-paper-reviewerChallenges core arguments and logical coherence as the devils advocate reviewer in the editorial panel
Peer Reviewer 2; assesses domain expertise, substantive accuracy, and field-specific adequacy
Synthesizes all reviewer reports into a unified editorial decision letter and revision roadmap
Editor-in-Chief; orchestrates the review panel and delivers the final editorial decision
Identifies the papers field and dynamically configures the reviewer teams identities and expertise
Uses power tools
Uses Bash, Write, or Edit tools
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Own this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge.
Sign in to claimOwn this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge.
Sign in to claimBased on adoption, maintenance, documentation, and repository signals. Not a security audit or endorsement.
Production-grade academic research pipeline for Claude Code: research → write → review → revise → finalize. 4 skills, 35+ modes, 38-agent ensemble, v3.7.3 + v3.8 L3 claim-faithfulness gate, v3.9.0 cross-index triangulation, v3.9.2 phase boundary fence (#133).
Multi-agent orchestrator for academic writing: 12 specialist agents and 30 writing principles for review, research, drafting, polishing, bibliography auditing, and literature surveys.
Simulate peer review by constructing reviewer personas from Zotero sources. Identifies relevant perspectives, retrieves full texts, builds reviewer profiles, and generates focused reviews on theory/methods and findings.
Diagnostic editorial intelligence for writing across contexts — papers, blogs, books, grants. Analyzes, diagnoses, and translates rather than generating from scratch.
Manage your academic publication pipeline from Claude Code — list, search, create, move, analyse, export BibTeX, track reminders, and sync papers (GitHub + Overleaf) via the Kabbo MCP server.
Academic manuscript toolkit: peer review, manuscript writing, and journal-specific formatting for submission
Production-grade academic research pipeline for Claude Code: research → write → review → revise → finalize. 4 skills, 35+ modes, 38-agent ensemble, v3.7.3 + v3.8 L3 claim-faithfulness gate, v3.9.0 cross-index triangulation, v3.9.2 phase boundary fence (#133).
完整学术流水线 — 从 idea 到论文的全流程编排:状态机追踪、完整性验证、claim 校验
深度研究 — 13 agent 协作:研究问题定义、系统性检索、偏差评估、综合分析、引用编译
学术论文写作 — 12 agent 协作:结构设计、段落写作、引用合规、双语摘要、格式排版
A sparring partner that trains quality-assurance reviewers to ask counterfactual questions and surfaces their systematic blind spots.
A comprehensive suite of Claude Code skills for academic research, covering the full pipeline from research to publication.
Install in 30 seconds (Claude Code CLI / VS Code / JetBrains, v3.7.0+):
/plugin marketplace add Imbad0202/academic-research-skills
/plugin install academic-research-skills
Then try /ars-plan to walk through your paper structure via Socratic dialogue, or jump to Quick install for prerequisites and the traditional symlink flow.
AI is your copilot, not the pilot. This tool won't write your paper for you. It handles the grunt work — hunting down references, formatting citations, verifying data, checking logical consistency — so you can focus on the parts that actually require your brain: defining the question, choosing the method, interpreting what the data means, and writing the sentence after "I argue that."
Unlike a humanizer, this tool doesn't help you hide the fact that you used AI. It helps you write better. Style Calibration learns your voice from past work. Writing Quality Check catches the patterns that make prose feel machine-generated. The goal is quality, not cheating.
Lu et al. (2026, Nature 651:914-919) built The AI Scientist — the first fully autonomous AI research system to publish a paper through blind peer review at a top-tier ML venue (ICLR 2025 workshop, score 6.33/10 vs workshop average 4.87). Their Limitations section enumerates the failure modes that any fully-autonomous AI research pipeline inherits: implementation bugs, hallucinated results, shortcut reliance, bug-as-insight reframing, methodology fabrication, frame-lock, citation hallucinations.
ARS is built on the premise that a human researcher augmented by AI avoids these failure modes better than either alone. Stage 2.5 and Stage 4.5 integrity gates run a 7-mode blocking checklist (see academic-pipeline/references/ai_research_failure_modes.md); the reviewer offers an opt-in calibration mode that measures its own FNR/FPR against a user-supplied gold set.
Zhao et al. (2026-05) audited 111M references across 2.5M papers on arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and PMC. Their conservative estimate is 146,932 hallucinated citations for 2025 alone, with an observed mid-2024 inflection; for the bioRxiv-to-PMC pairing they report 85.3% preprint-to-published persistence. The paper describes "real citations deployed to support claims the cited references do not actually make" as an open challenge. ARS v3.7.1 added trust-chain frontmatter for source provenance; v3.7.3 added locator infrastructure (three-layer citation anchors) for future claim-level audits and surfaces advisory risk signals at cite time (ARS labels the claim-faithfulness gap internally as "L3"; this is ARS terminology, not the paper's). v3.7.x is motivated by Zhao et al.'s corpus-scale findings; corpus-scale evaluation of ARS itself remains future work.
v3.8 closes the second half of the L3 gap. v3.7.3 made every citation carry a locator anchor; v3.8 adds an opt-in audit pass (ARS_CLAIM_AUDIT=1) that fetches the cited source against each anchor and judges whether the claim is actually supported. Five new HIGH-WARN classes (claim-not-supported, negative-constraint-violation, fabricated-reference, anchorless, constraint-violation-uncited) gate-refuse output through the formatter terminal hard gate. Calibration is shipped as a 20-tuple gold set with FNR<0.15 + FPR<0.10 acceptance thresholds; ramp-on plan is deferred to post-calibration evidence per v3.8 spec §5.
v3.3 was inspired by PaperOrchestra (Song, Song, Pfister & Yoon, 2026, Google): Semantic Scholar API verification, anti-leakage protocol, VLM figure verification, and score trajectory tracking.
👉 docs/ARCHITECTURE.md — the full pipeline view: flow diagram, stage-by-stage matrix, data-access flow, skill dependency graph, quality gates, and mode list.
The architecture doc supersedes the sprawling pipeline description that used to live here. Everything about what runs in which stage now lives in one place.
Prerequisites