mcpField
A
adversarial-review

adversarial-review

github.com/vincenzoimpProductivity475 installsUpdated 14w ago
Repository

About adversarial-review

Adversarial Review is a review skill for surveys, project contributions, and papers, aimed at authors preparing work for acceptance. It audits critical claims against evidence and produces a report without editing the artifact.

Key features

  1. 01Select standards by artifact type
  2. 02Audit critical claims against evidence
  3. 03Review through separate assessment lanes
  4. 04Group findings by severity
  5. 05Provide a prioritized revision roadmap

Use cases

  1. 01Check a paper's fit and soundness before submission
  2. 02Review whether contribution claims match their evidence
  3. 03Assess survey coverage and its treatment of research gaps

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/vincenzoimp/academic-research-skills --skill adversarial-review

After installing, type/adversarial-reviewin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled filesreferences/claim-audit.mdreferences/review-lanes.md

Details

From the project README

Adversarial Review

Find the objections that would block acceptance before external reviewers do. Review; never fix. Findings go to a report beside the artifact; the artifact itself is never edited by this skill.

Read First

  • the artifact under review: survey/survey.tex + PDF, or a contribution README + report, or a manuscript + framing.md + venue.md
  • references/review-lanes.md, references/claim-audit.md

Procedure

  1. Identify the target and the standard it must meet:
    • survey → coverage vs sota/index.md, grouping logic, fairness, and the quality of the gaps section
    • contribution → badge-checklist truthfulness, methodology (the develop-contribution methodology standard), claim–evidence match
    • paper → venue fit and reviewer simulation per venue.md, novelty, soundness, clarity
  2. Read claim-first: contributions/claims, then the evidence offered.
  3. Run the claim audit on every acceptance-critical claim per references/claim-audit.md: verify each against the cited synthesis, contribution output, or PDF.
  4. Review through every lane in references/review-lanes.md; keep lane findings separate until the final synthesis.
  5. Write the report to reviews/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<scope>.md beside the artifact (survey/reviews/, contributions/<slug>/reviews/, papers/<slug>/reviews/ — create the folder on demand) with: executive summary and recommendation; strengths with evidence; weaknesses grouped by severity; the claim-audit table; questions the authors must answer; a prioritized revision roadmap.

Criticism Standard

Every major criticism carries: exact claim or location, why it matters, evidence, what would fix or weaken it, severity (fatal / major / moderate / minor), and confidence. No performative harshness; no objection without evidence; polish never excuses methodological weakness.

Done When

  • The report exists with all sections, every fatal/major finding is evidence-backed, and no lane finding was dropped during synthesis — if a finding is wrong, the report says why

Comments

Markdown supported