By Imbad0202
Simulates a multi-perspective academic peer review process with 5 independent reviewers (EIC, 3 peers, Devil's Advocate) and multiple review modes, synthesizing reports into an editorial decision letter and revision roadmap.
Challenges 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
Own this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge. GitHub access is read-only (username + org membership).
Sign in to claimOwn this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge. GitHub access is read-only (username + org membership).
Sign in to claimBased on adoption, maintenance, documentation, and repository signals. Not a security audit or endorsement.
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
Production-grade academic research pipeline for Claude Code: research → write → review → revise → finalize. 4 skills, 27 modes, 39-agent ensemble, v3.7.3 + v3.8 L3 claim-faithfulness gate, v3.9.0 cross-index triangulation, v3.10 triangulation policy layer, v3.11 deterministic citation verification gate (#182).
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
台灣正式文件撰寫助手 — 涵蓋政府公文、政府非公文文件、法律文件、人民對政府文書四類中文正式文件的撰寫。依使用者意圖自動判斷文件類別,載入對應撰寫規範與格式指引。
npx claudepluginhub lkcy23/claudespace --plugin academic-paper-reviewer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
Rigorous, fair peer review in two modes. (A) Red-team your OWN draft before you submit — a simulated panel (a generous champion, the brutal Reviewer 2, a novelty-hawk Area Chair) predicts the reviews and hands you a prioritized fix list. (B) Review SOMEONE ELSE'S paper when you're an assigned reviewer or helping your advisor — a fair, venue-formatted, submission-ready review. Grounded in official NeurIPS/ICLR/ACL reviewer guidelines; every criticism pinned to a location and checked against ACL's H1–H17 list of illegitimate critiques. No invented flaws.
Multi-agent orchestrator for academic writing: 12 specialist agents and 30 writing principles for review, research, drafting, polishing, bibliography auditing, and literature surveys.
Pre-submission AI review and editing for CS-conference papers: direct-edit LaTeX or Markdown (Word via one-time extraction), run an adversarial multi-agent courtroom review with consensus-gated revisions, or run it unattended toward a goal.
A 12-skill depth pack for AISTATS submissions: topic fit, OpenReview submission checks, author discussion, camera-ready, artifacts, reproducibility, supplementary material, review process, writing style, related work, experiments, and workflow. Grounded in official AISTATS 2026 CFP, OpenReview group, PMLR proceedings pages, and Code of Conduct checked on 2026-06-01.
Diagnostic editorial intelligence for writing across contexts — papers, blogs, books, grants. Analyzes, diagnoses, and translates rather than generating from scratch.