# Academic Paper Review > Úsalo cuando el usuario pida revisar, analizar, criticar o resumir papers académicos, artículos de investigación, preprints o publicaciones científicas, con reviews estructuradas al estilo de las mejores conferencias. Fuente: https://skillsagentes.com/skills/bytedance/deer-flow/academic-paper-review Markdown: https://skillsagentes.com/skills/bytedance/deer-flow/academic-paper-review.md Repositorio: https://github.com/bytedance/deer-flow Autor: bytedance Licencia: MIT Actualizado: hace 4 meses Coste de contexto: 125 tok instalada, 3k tok al activarse, 3k tok con todos los archivos del bundle Bundle: 1 archivo, 12 KB Permisos que pide: ninguno declarado ## Instalación Un skill son archivos markdown: los mismos archivos valen para cualquier agente y lo único que cambia es el directorio de destino, es decir la bandera `--agent`. Añade `-g` para instalarlo en todos los proyectos de la máquina. ```bash # Claude Code npx -y skills add bytedance/deer-flow --skill academic-paper-review --agent claude-code # Cursor npx -y skills add bytedance/deer-flow --skill academic-paper-review --agent cursor # Codex npx -y skills add bytedance/deer-flow --skill academic-paper-review --agent codex # Gemini CLI npx -y skills add bytedance/deer-flow --skill academic-paper-review --agent gemini # Windsurf npx -y skills add bytedance/deer-flow --skill academic-paper-review --agent windsurf # Cline npx -y skills add bytedance/deer-flow --skill academic-paper-review --agent cline ``` ## Qué hace - Lee el paper por completo y extrae metadatos, reclamos clave con su evidencia y fuerza (fuerte/moderada/débil) - Busca en la web el contexto de literatura relacionada para posicionar el trabajo frente al estado del arte - Evalúa la metodología con una tabla de 1 a 5 en solidez, novedad, reproducibilidad, diseño experimental, rigor estadístico y escalabilidad - Produce una revisión estructurada con fortalezas, debilidades, preguntas para los autores y una recomendación final (Accept/Reject/etc.) ## Cuándo usarla - El usuario da la URL o el PDF de un paper y pide revisarlo, analizarlo, criticarlo o resumirlo - Se pide preparar una revisión estilo peer review para una conferencia o revista ## Qué la activa - "Revisa este paper de arXiv como si fueras un peer reviewer" - "Analiza la metodología de este estudio y dame tu evaluación" - "Resume las fortalezas y debilidades de esta investigación" ## Archivos - SKILL.md — 12 KB ## SKILL.md Reproducido tal cual desde bytedance/deer-flow bajo MIT. Esta sección es el documento original y está en inglés. # Academic Paper Review Skill ## Overview This skill produces structured, peer-review-quality analyses of academic papers and research publications. It follows established academic review standards used by top-tier venues (NeurIPS, ICML, ACL, Nature, IEEE) to provide rigorous, constructive, and balanced assessments. The review covers **summary, strengths, weaknesses, methodology assessment, contribution evaluation, literature positioning, and actionable recommendations** — all grounded in evidence from the paper itself. ## Core Capabilities - Parse and comprehend academic papers from uploaded PDFs or fetched URLs - Generate structured reviews following top-venue review templates - Assess methodology rigor (experimental design, statistical validity, reproducibility) - Evaluate novelty and significance of contributions - Position the work within the broader research landscape via targeted literature search - Identify limitations, gaps, and potential improvements - Produce both detailed review and concise executive summary formats - Support papers in any scientific domain (CS, biology, physics, social sciences, etc.) ## When to Use This Skill **Always load this skill when:** - User provides a paper URL (arXiv, DOI, conference proceedings, journal link) - User uploads a PDF of a research paper or preprint - User asks to "review", "analyze", "critique", "assess", or "summarize" a research paper - User wants to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a study - User requests a peer-review-style evaluation of academic work - User asks for help preparing a review for a conference or journal submission ## Review Methodology ### Phase 1: Paper Comprehension Thoroughly read and understand the paper before forming any judgments. #### Step 1.1: Identify Paper Metadata Extract and record: | Field | Description | |-------|-------------| | **Title** | Full paper title | | **Authors** | Author list and affiliations | | **Venue / Status** | Publication venue, preprint server, or submission status | | **Year** | Publication or submission year | | **Domain** | Research field and subfield | | **Paper Type** | Empirical, theoretical, survey, position paper, systems paper, etc. | #### Step 1.2: Deep Reading Pass Read the paper systematically: 1. **Abstract & Introduction** — Identify the claimed contributions and motivation 2. **Related Work** — Note how authors position their work relative to prior art 3. **Methodology** — Understand the proposed approach, model, or framework in detail 4. **Experiments / Results** — Examine datasets, baselines, metrics, and reported outcomes 5. **Discussion & Limitations** — Note any self-identified limitations 6. **Conclusion** — Compare concluded claims against actual evidence presented #### Step 1.3: Key Claims Extraction List the paper's main claims explicitly: ``` Claim 1: [Specific claim about contribution or finding] Evidence: [What evidence supports this claim in the paper] Strength: [Strong / Moderate / Weak] Claim 2: [...] ... ``` ### Phase 2: Critical Analysis #### Step 2.1: Literature Context Search Use web search to understand the research landscape: ``` Search queries: - "[paper topic] state of the art [current year]" - "[key method name] comparison benchmark" - "[authors] previous work [topic]" - "[specific technique] limitations criticism" - "survey [research area] recent advances" ``` Use `web_fetch` on key related papers or surveys to understand where this work fits. #### Step 2.2: Methodology Assessment Evaluate the methodology using the following framework: | Criterion | Questions to Ask | Rating | |-----------|-----------------|--------| | **Soundness** | Is the approach technically correct? Are there logical flaws? | 1-5 | | **Novelty** | What is genuinely new vs. incremental improvement? | 1-5 | | **Reproducibility** | Are details sufficient to reproduce? Code/data available? | 1-5 | | **Experimental Design** | Are baselines fair? Are ablations adequate? Are datasets appropriate? | 1-5 | | **Statistical Rigor** | Are results statistically significant? Error bars reported? Multiple runs? | 1-5 | | **Scalability** | Does the approach scale? Are computational costs discussed? | 1-5 | #### Step 2.3: Contribution Significance Assessment Evaluate the significance level: | Level | Description | Criteria | |-------|-------------|----------| | **Landmark** | Fundamentally changes the field | New paradigm, widely applicable breakthrough | | **Significant** | Strong contribution advancing the state of the art | Clear improvement with solid evidence | | **Moderate** | Useful contribution with some limitations | Incremental but valid improvement | | **Marginal** | Minimal advance over existing work | Small gains, narrow applicability | | **Below threshold** | Does not meet publication standards | Fundamental flaws, insufficient evidence | #### Step 2.4: Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis For each strength or weakness, provide: - **What**: Specific observation - **Where**: Section/figure/table reference - **Why it matters**: Impact on the paper's claims or utility ### Phase 3: Review Synthesis #### Step 3.1: Assemble the Structured Review Produce the final review using the template below. ## Review Output Template ```markdown # Paper Review: [Paper Title] ## Paper Metadata - **Authors**: [Author list] - **Venue**: [Publication venue or preprint server] - **Year**: [Year] - **Domain**: [Research field] - **Paper Type**: [Empirical / Theoretical / Survey / Systems / Position] ## Executive Summary [2-3 paragraph summary of the paper's core contribution, approach, and main findings. State your overall assessment upfront: what the paper does well, where it falls short, and whether the contribution is sufficient for the claimed venue/impact level.] ## Summary of Contributions 1. [First claimed contribution — one sentence] 2. [Second claimed contribution — one sentence] 3. [Additional contributions if any] ## Strengths ### S1: [Concise strength title] [Detailed explanation with specific references to sections, figures, or tables in the paper. Explain WHY this is a strength and its significance.] ### S2: [Concise strength title] [...] ### S3: [Concise strength title] [...] ## Weaknesses ### W1: [Concise weakness title] [Detailed explanation with specific references. Explain the impact of this weakness on the paper's claims. Suggest how it could be addressed.] ### W2: [Concise weakness title] [...] ### W3: [Concise weakness title] [...] ## Methodology Assessment | Criterion | Rating (1-5) | Assessment | |-----------|:---:|------------| | Soundness | X | [Brief justification] | | Novelty | X | [Brief justification] | | Reproducibility | X | [Brief justification] | | Experimental Design | X | [Brief justification] | | Statistical Rigor | X | [Brief justification] | | Scalability | X | [Brief justification] | ## Questions for the Authors 1. [Specific question that would clarify a concern or ambiguity] 2. [Question about methodology choices or alternative approaches] 3. [Question about generalizability or practical applicability] ## Minor Issues - [Typos, formatting issues, unclear figures, notation inconsistencies] - [Missing references that should be cited] - [Suggestions for improved clarity] ## Literature Positioning [How does this work relate to the current state of the art? Are key related works cited? Are comparisons fair and comprehensive? What important related work is missing?] ## Recommendations **Overall Assessment**: [Accept / Weak Accept / Borderline / Weak Reject / Reject] **Confidence**: [High / Medium / Low] — [Justification for confidence level] **Contribution Level**: [Landmark / Significant / Moderate / Marginal / Below threshold] ### Actionable Suggestions for Improvement 1. [Specific, constructive suggestion] 2. [Specific, constructive suggestion] 3. [Specific, constructive suggestion] ``` ## Review Principles ### Constructive Criticism - **Always suggest how to fix it** — Don't just point out problems; propose solutions - **Give credit where due** — Acknowledge genuine contributions even in flawed papers - **Be specific** — Reference exact sections, equations, figures, and tables - **Separate minor from major** — Distinguish fatal flaws from fixable issues ### Objectivity Standards - ❌ "This paper is poorly written" (vague, unhelpful) - ✅ "Section 3.2 introduces notation X without formal definition, making the proof in Theorem 1 difficult to follow. Consider adding a notation table after the problem formulation." (specific, actionable) ### Ethical Review Practices - Do NOT dismiss work based on author reputation or affiliation - Evaluate the work on its own merits - Flag potential ethical concerns (bias in datasets, dual-use implications) constructively - Maintain confidentiality of unpublished work ## Adaptation by Paper Type | Paper Type | Focus Areas | |------------|-------------| | **Empirical** | Experimental design, baselines, statistical significance, ablations, reproducibility | | **Theoretical** | Proof correctness, assumption reasonableness, tightness of bounds, connection to practice | | **Survey** | Comprehensiveness, taxonomy quality, coverage of recent work, synthesis insights | | **Systems** | Architecture decisions, scalability evidence, real-world deployment, engineering contributions | | **Position** | Argument coherence, evidence for claims, impact potential, fairness of characterizations | ## Common Pitfalls to Avoid - ❌ Reviewing the paper you wish was written instead of the paper that was submitted - ❌ Demanding additional experiments that are unreasonable in scope - ❌ Penalizing the paper for not solving a different problem - ❌ Being overly influenced by writing quality versus technical contribution - ❌ Treating absence of comparison to your own work as a weakness - ❌ Providing only a summary without critical analysis ## Quality Checklist Before finalizing the review, verify: - [ ] Paper was read completely (not just abstract and introduction) - [ ] All major claims are identified and evaluated against evidence - [ ] At least 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses are provided with specific references - [ ] The methodology assessment table is complete with ratings and justifications - [ ] Questions for authors target genuine ambiguities, not rhetorical critiques - [ ] Literature search was conducted to contextualize the contribution - [ ] Recommendations are actionable and constructive - [ ] The overall assessment is consistent with the identified strengths and weaknesses - [ ] The review tone is professional and respectful - [ ] Minor issues are separated from major concerns ## Output Format - Output the complete review in **Markdown** format - Save the review to `/mnt/user-data/outputs/review-{paper-topic}.md` when working in sandbox - Present the review to the user using the `present_files` tool ## Notes - This skill complements the `deep-research` skill — load both when the user wants the paper reviewed in the context of the broader field - For papers behind paywalls, work with whatever content is accessible (abstract, publicly available versions, preprint mirrors) - Adapt the review depth to the user's needs: a brief assessment for quick triage versus a full review for submission preparation - When reviewing multiple papers comparatively, maintain consistent criteria across all reviews - Always disclose limitations of your review (e.g., "I could not verify the proofs in Appendix B in detail") ## Dónde encaja - Categoría: [Investigación](https://skillsagentes.com/categorias/investigacion.md) — Investigación estructurada, búsqueda de fuentes y síntesis. - Creador: [bytedance](https://skillsagentes.com/creators/bytedance.md) — 27 skills en el directorio - [Todas las skills](https://skillsagentes.com/skills.md) - [Ranking de instalaciones](https://skillsagentes.com/ranking.md) ## Otras skills del mismo repositorio - [Engineer System Change](https://skillsagentes.com/skills/bytedance/deer-flow/engineer-system-change.md): Evalúa y ejecuta cambios de sistema no triviales desde primeros principios: RFCs, features, refactors, migraciones o nuevas APIs, exigiendo consumidores concretos, la solución mínima suficiente y evidencia proporcional al riesgo. - [Skill Reviewer](https://skillsagentes.com/skills/bytedance/deer-flow/skill-reviewer.md): Revisa paquetes de skills de DeerFlow: preparación para publicar, triggers, límites de seguridad, recursos y evidencia. Úsala cuando pidan auditar, calificar o validar para producción una skill. - [Smoke Test](https://skillsagentes.com/skills/bytedance/deer-flow/smoke-test.md): Skill de smoke test de extremo a extremo para DeerFlow: actualiza el código, despliega en local o Docker, verifica disponibilidad de servicios, hace health check y genera el reporte final. - [Skill Creator](https://skillsagentes.com/skills/bytedance/deer-flow/skill-creator.md): Crea skills nuevas, modifica y mejora skills existentes, y mide su rendimiento. Úsala para crear una skill, editarla, correr evals, hacer benchmark con análisis de varianza, u optimizar su descripción. - [Deerflow Maintainer Orchestrator](https://skillsagentes.com/skills/bytedance/deer-flow/deerflow-maintainer-orchestrator.md): Manejo de issues y PRs de GitHub solo por comentarios para mantenedores de DeerFlow: resuelve alcance con gh, analiza, publica o redacta comentarios de issues y revisiones de PR, y compara PRs en competencia. --- Skills Agentes · [Índice de páginas en markdown](https://skillsagentes.com/sitemap.md) · [Inicio](https://skillsagentes.com/index.md)