Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From sci-brain
Reviews existing scientific manuscripts (.tex/.typ/.md) with location-anchored comments and user-approved edits. Verifies references and factual claims.
npx claudepluginhub quantumbfs/sci-brain --plugin sci-brainHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/sci-brain:paper-reviewerThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Run a structured **review-and-enhance** pass over an *existing* scientific manuscript. The skill reads the whole paper, produces **location-anchored comments first**, then applies only the edits the user approves and re-checks that the manuscript still compiles.
Audits academic or technical manuscripts with a section-level refactoring report covering argument architecture, narrative flow, citation hygiene, and submission-readiness.
Academic writing multi-agent orchestrator. TRIGGER when: user is editing .tex files, reviewing thesis/paper chapters, drafting academic content, checking writing quality, or analyzing research positioning. Coordinates specialist agents in parallel for review, research, drafting, polishing, figure work, bibliography auditing, and literature surveys.
Systematic self-review checklist for academic papers covering structure, logic consistency, citations, claim auditing, figure/table quality, and writing clarity.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Run a structured review-and-enhance pass over an existing scientific manuscript. The skill reads the whole paper, produces location-anchored comments first, then applies only the edits the user approves and re-checks that the manuscript still compiles.
Scope note. This is the reviewing/revising counterpart to paper-writer (which drafts a manuscript figures-first). It is not survey-writer, which writes technology/field-assessment reports from a literature survey. Use paper-reviewer when a manuscript already exists and the user wants comments, a referee-style critique, reference/fact verification, or guideline-driven polish. If no manuscript exists yet, redirect to paper-writer.
The eight guidelines below come from a manuscript-quality rubric. Where a rule is already defined as an authoring rule in paper-writer/SKILL.md (sentence/notation/figure discipline), this skill references it rather than restating it — consult skills/paper-writer/SKILL.md and skills/paper-writer/references.md for the why behind a rule. The full rubric lives in skills/paper-reviewer/checklist.md.
Use skills/_shared/writing-workflow.md for KB/context loading, citation handling, the BibTeX lookup chain, and output mechanics.
Comment-first, non-destructive. Never edit the manuscript before the user has seen and approved the findings. Read the whole paper, deliver the comments, let the user choose what to apply, then edit. This mirrors paper-writer's "iterate the story with the user" philosophy: the author keeps control of judgment calls.
| # | Guideline | Phase | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Break long sentences; one concept per sentence | 1 | paper-writer Sentence-Level Rules |
| 2 | Define every concept/symbol before use | 1 | paper-writer Notation Rulebook |
| 3 | Each paragraph has one well-defined job | 1 | paper-writer Sentence-Level Rules |
| 4 | DRY — avoid repeated explanations/definitions | 1 | new to this skill |
| 5 | Display math reserved for emphasis only | 1 | paper-writer Notation Rulebook |
| 6 | Read the whole paper first; grasp the story, then each section's mission | 0 | new — the gate before critique |
| 7 | Every figure referenced ≥1× and its striking features discussed | 1 | paper-writer Figure Rulebook |
| 8 | Verify factual claims & references; flag the uncertain | 2 | new — the standout capability |
Rank every finding so the user can triage:
articles/<slug>/ or the working directory. Detect format from the extension: LaTeX (.tex) is primary; Typst (.typ) and Markdown (.md) are supported.\bibliography{…} / \addbibresource{…} target (or embedded thebibliography / Typst bibliography(…)), then fall back to $(dirname $KB)/ref.bib. Handle both; note which one you used.skills/_shared/writing-workflow.md: resolve KB=$(python3 skills/download-ref/helpers/resolve_kb.py), read $KB/INDEX.md, $KB/NOTES.md, $(dirname $KB)/ref.bib, and docs/discussion/user-profile.md if present. This is the literature backdrop for fact-checking.Do not proceed to Phase 1 until the user confirms (or corrects) the story summary.
Walk the manuscript and produce findings. Each finding has this shape:
{ guideline: 1–8,
location: section + line/anchor (and the offending snippet),
severity: high | med | low,
problem: what's wrong, in one sentence,
fix: a concrete suggested edit }
Checks:
paper-writer Sentence-Level Rules.)paper-writer Notation Rulebook.)paper-writer Notation Rulebook.)paper-writer Figure Rulebook.)Also run a per-section "did this section deliver its Phase-0 mission?" check (guideline #6 carried into the body).
The standout capability. Follow the repo discipline: never invent BibTeX from memory; use the lookup chain CrossRef → Semantic Scholar → MCP → WebFetch; verify only what supports the main claims (completeness is not the goal — see skills/_shared/writing-workflow.md).
\cite key: confirm the entry exists in the resolved bibliography, then verify authors / year / title / venue against the lookup chain. Flag broken, missing, or mismatched citations. Offer to repair via /download-ref (it owns ref.bib appends and metadata fetching).Write a timestamped report to articles/<slug>/review-YYYY-MM-DD.md (the repo's dated-output convention). Structure:
Then present a short summary to the user and ask which findings to apply.
% [reviewer] … margin comment instead of rewriting silently (use // [reviewer] for Typst, an HTML comment for Markdown).latexmk (or pdflatex) for .tex, typst compile for .typ; for .md, confirm it still renders. Report pass/fail with the actual command output (per verification-before-completion: evidence before assertions). If it breaks, fix or revert the offending edit before claiming done.Reused (no duplication): skills/_shared/writing-workflow.md (context, citations, output mechanics); the BibTeX lookup chain (CrossRef → Semantic Scholar → MCP → WebFetch); download-ref for reference repair; paper-writer's sentence/notation/figure rule definitions (referenced).
New here: the read-whole-first review protocol (Phase 0), DRY/anti-repetition detection (#4), fact & reference verification (#8), and the comment-then-apply loop plus compile-check (Phases 3–4).
| Mistake | Instead |
|---|---|
| Editing before the user approves | Comment-first. Phase 3 → user picks → Phase 4. |
| Nitpicking sentences before confirming the story | Phase 0 gate: confirm the story summary first. |
| Inventing a BibTeX entry to "fix" a citation | Never. Use the lookup chain / /download-ref, or flag as unverifiable. |
| Silently "correcting" a factual claim | Flag uncertain claims; the author decides. |
| Claiming done without compiling | Run latexmk / typst compile and paste the result. |
| Chasing completeness on fact-checks | Verify only what supports the main claims. |
skills/_shared/writing-workflow.md.skills/paper-writer/SKILL.md + skills/paper-writer/references.md./download-ref.skills/paper-reviewer/checklist.md.