From sjh-skills
Self-reviews academic paper paragraphs (intro, abstract, method, related work) to diagnose v1 issues like logic gaps, repetition, and detail leakage, providing targeted revision directions.
npx claudepluginhub jiahao-shao1/sjh-skills --plugin sjh-skillsThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Mechanical v1 → v2 iteration for paper paragraphs. Core belief: every v1 is a mix of logic gaps, repetition, and detail leakage. This skill does not write the first draft — it makes the revision loop deterministic instead of vibe-driven.
Provides checklists to review academic paper structure, logic, citations, figures/tables, and writing clarity before submission.
Critiques and improves academic paragraphs or generates new ones from atomic sentences (claims with citations). Outputs Speculative, Safe, and Assertive variants for every response.
Generates structured peer review reports for academic manuscripts, evaluating novelty, methodological rigor, clarity, impact, and ethics. Use when critiquing papers or providing reviewer feedback.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Mechanical v1 → v2 iteration for paper paragraphs. Core belief: every v1 is a mix of logic gaps, repetition, and detail leakage. This skill does not write the first draft — it makes the revision loop deterministic instead of vibe-driven.
Theoretical anchors:
paper-self-review / "self-check this paragraph"Not used for: typo / grammar / LaTeX compilation issues.
Before writing the intro (not after) — required. If the user cannot state the paper's core contribution in one sentence, stop:
Write the contribution in ≤ 25 words. If you cannot, you have not yet thought it through clearly. Do not start writing the intro.
— SPJ: "If you cannot state your contribution in one sentence, you don't yet have a paper."
Save that sentence. Every paragraph that follows must trace back to it.
Run all three axes after each paragraph. If any axis fails, rewrite the paragraph — do not patch locally. The reason: paragraph-level problems (logic gap, repetition, detail leak) almost always cascade across sentences; surgical edits leave the structure broken.
Rule: Before drafting, write down the paragraph's "single task" in one sentence. Then every sentence must follow directly from the previous one.
Anti-patterns (canonical v1 symptoms):
Self-check questions:
Rule: After drafting, condense the paragraph's claim to a 5-word phrase (e.g., "method M beats baseline B"). Then check repetition at two scopes:
If the user pasted only one paragraph in isolation, do the local check fully and flag global repetition as "needs full-intro context to verify" — do not invent or assume what other paragraphs say.
Self-check questions:
For stylized examples (an introduction that repeats one claim four times), see references/anti-patterns.md.
Rule: When the intro touches on the method, each comparison conveys only two things — what was asked / what number was obtained. Symbol definitions, narrow-design rationale, and theoretical interpretation defer to §3 / §5.
Hard constraint: in the intro, method word count ≤ results word count.
Self-check questions:
Variant-A, Method-M) at this point in the intro?For a stylized example (a "Testing the hypothesis" paragraph that turned into half a §3), see references/anti-patterns.md.
When the user pastes a paragraph:
Either ask the user, or extract it yourself: what is this paragraph's "single task"? If you cannot extract it cleanly, send the paragraph back: it is not yet thought through, and word-choice edits will not fix it.
Axis 1 → 2 → 3. Surface only the single most severe issue per axis. Listing ten nits is unactionable; the user cannot revise breadth-first.
Output template:
## Single task (extracted)
<one sentence>
## Axis 1 — Logic
<the most severe jump + which anchor sentence is missing>
## Axis 2 — Expression
<5-word claim + how many times it repeats + which to keep, which to cut>
## Axis 3 — Detail
<which symbol / rationale should defer to §X>
## Suggested revision (≤ 3 sentences, direction only — do not rewrite)
<direction, not v2 prose>
The default mode is diagnosis only — name the issue, point at the v1 sentence, give a direction. This is what trains the user's self-review reflex; rewriting on every request short-circuits the learning loop and produces another v1 next time.
When to give a reference v2 (allowed, mark it explicitly):
In these cases, after the three-axis diagnosis, give one reference rewrite and tag it: "reference only — please verify against the three axes; the diagnosis above is the more important output."
Never generate a v1 from scratch — if the user has not written anything yet, return them to the pre-flight one-sentence claim test.
Avoid the "reviewer #2" tone of "this is unclear, please revise".
| Symptom | Axis | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| 4–5 jumps in one paragraph | 1 | Split into N paragraphs, one task each |
| First/Second/Third filler | 1 | Check if the three points are paraphrases; if so, merge |
| Topic sentence and closing don't align | 1 | Rewrite topic sentence, or cut the drifted middle |
| Same 5-word claim repeats ≥ 2 times | 2 | Keep the strongest occurrence; cut the rest |
| Hypothesis paragraph repeats across 4 sentences | 2 | Keep 1; defer the rest to §3 |
| Intro mentions an undefined method symbol | 3 | Replace with natural-language contrast ("with vs. without the proposed component") |
| Intro explains "why narrow / why this design" | 3 | Cut; defer to §3.X |
| Method word count > result word count | 3 | Cut method description; add result numbers |
For worked examples behind these rows, see references/anti-patterns.md.
references/anti-patterns.md — stylized v1 paragraphs and their three-axis diagnosis