Critiques your paper draft as a skeptical reviewer would. Use when asked to review a paper draft, find weaknesses in a paper, prepare for peer review, anticipate reviewer criticism, or stress-test research before submission. Identifies weak claims, missing baselines, unclear explanations, and overclaims.
/plugin marketplace add GhostScientist/skills/plugin install writing-skills@GhostScientist-skillsThis skill inherits all available tools. When active, it can use any tool Claude has access to.
Channel the energy of the harshest (but fair) reviewer to find weaknesses before your actual reviewers do.
Reviewer 2 is:
Reviewer 2 is NOT:
Read like a busy reviewer would:
First-pass questions:
Go section by section:
Common issues:
Common issues:
Common issues:
Common issues:
Common issues:
Common issues:
These are the questions that sink papers:
Novelty:
Significance:
Soundness:
Clarity:
Rate on standard conference criteria:
| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Novelty | How new is this? | |
| Significance | How much does it matter? | |
| Soundness | Is it technically correct? | |
| Clarity | Is it well-written? | |
| Reproducibility | Could I implement this? |
Overall Recommendation:
# Reviewer 2 Report: [Paper Title]
## Summary (2-3 sentences)
[What the paper does and claims]
## Strengths
1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
3. [Strength 3]
## Weaknesses
### Major Issues (any one is grounds for rejection)
1. **[Issue Title]**
- What's wrong: [Description]
- Why it matters: [Impact on claims]
- How to fix: [Concrete suggestion]
### Minor Issues (should be fixed but not fatal)
1. **[Issue Title]**
- [Description and suggestion]
### Nitpicks (take or leave)
- [Small thing 1]
- [Small thing 2]
## Questions for Authors
1. [Question that must be answered]
2. [Question that would strengthen paper]
## Missing References
- [Paper 1]: [Why it should be cited]
- [Paper 2]: [Why it should be cited]
## Scores
| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Novelty | X/5 | |
| Significance | X/5 | |
| Soundness | X/5 | |
| Clarity | X/5 | |
## Overall Assessment
**Recommendation:** [Accept/Reject with confidence]
**In one sentence:** [The core issue or strength]
## Author Rebuttal Priorities
If I were the author, I would address these in order:
1. [Most important thing to address]
2. [Second most important]
3. [Third]
Reviewer 2 is harsh but fair:
Reviewer 2 is NOT:
Creating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems. Create original algorithmic art rather than copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.
Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography to any sort of artifact that may benefit from having Anthropic's look-and-feel. Use it when brand colors or style guidelines, visual formatting, or company design standards apply.
Create beautiful visual art in .png and .pdf documents using design philosophy. You should use this skill when the user asks to create a poster, piece of art, design, or other static piece. Create original visual designs, never copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.