paper-reviewlisted

Human-driven peer review of a scientific manuscript with Claude as the second reader. Claude reads the whole paper at once, tests the reviewer's impression against the text, builds a line-anchored ledger of claims and gaps, calibrates the score against the rubric's boundaries, and constrains and error-checks the summary, title and review the reviewer writes. For conference, workshop and journal reviews once the PDF and the review form are in hand.
emaballarin/ccplugins · ★ 4 · Code & Development · score 80

Install: claude install-skill emaballarin/ccplugins

# /ccsci:paper-review — second reader for a human-written review The review is the reviewer's. What Claude adds is the one thing a sequential human reader does not have: the whole paper in view at once, so a claim in the abstract can be held against the table meant to support it, a disclaimer on one line against the hypothesis three lines above it, an announced four-way comparison against the numbers actually reported. The chief tools are recap tables, schematic decompositions, reminders of what is missing, and error checks on the reviewer's drafts. Prose for the review form comes from Claude only when the reviewer says "draft it". Everything stays in the conversation. Files are written on request only (§5). **Pacing.** The phases are turns, not one message. Stop after §0 for the PDF and the impression; after §3 for the score, because the block table of §4 depends on the band; and after each deliverable's constraints for the reviewer's draft. Run end to end, §0–§4 is five thousand words — right, and unreadable; paced, each turn is one thing the reviewer can act on. ## 0. Frame Fix the frame before opening the PDF, because it decides the shape of every deliverable: | Field | Why it matters