use for adaptive deep research, broad but accurate information gathering, literature review, github and project due diligence, source graph investigation, ci...
Coding
Research Review Skill Factory
Try itBuild custom peer-review skills for specific research areas, problem families, and method combinations using OpenReview evidence. Use when Codex needs a comp...
What it does
Build custom peer-review skills for specific research areas, problem families, and method combinations using OpenReview evidence. Use when Codex needs a comp...
The skill document
Research Review Skill Factory
Use this meta-skill to build a custom review skill for a specific research area, problem family, or method combination. It is broader than a manuscript-specific builder: the generated child skill should help review future papers in the selected area.
Core Idea
Create a field/problem-specific reviewer skill:
research area + problem set -> area profile -> OpenReview queries -> reviewer concern patterns -> custom area reviewer skill
Examples:
ssfl-diffusion-representation-reviewer-openreviewfederated-ssl-privacy-reviewer-openreviewspectral-representation-theory-reviewer-openreviewllm-agent-benchmark-reviewer-openreview
Workflow
-
Define the research area and problem set
- Ask for or infer the area scope: narrow field, parent fields, problem family, method families, theory objects, experiment settings, and target venues.
- Use
references/research_area_profile_schema.md. - Preserve narrow terms before broad terms.
-
Generate OpenReview query plan
- Create 8-20 queries covering the exact area phrase, subproblems, method families, theory or benchmark keywords, closest baseline families, and broader fallback fields.
- Check the current date and select the current ICLR year plus two previous public ICLR years unless the user specifies years.
-
Retrieve public OpenReview evidence
- Use:
python scripts/fetch_openreview_field_evidence.py --field "" --years --output "/"
- Collect reviewer concerns from accepted, rejected, withdrawn, and desk-rejected public submissions when available.
- Use author responses only from accepted papers by default.
-
Synthesize an area review-response bank
- Cluster reviewer concerns by category.
- For each pattern, record trigger terms, reviewer concern, accepted-paper response pattern, what future papers in this area must show, and representative evidence.
- Keep direct quotes short; paraphrase patterns and cite forum URLs.
-
Generate the child area reviewer skill
- Use
scripts/init_research_area_review_skill.pywith a filled area profile JSON. - The generated child skill must include
SKILL.md,agents/openai.yaml,references/research_area_profile.md,references/openreview_review_response_bank.md,references/review_output_contract.md,references/subtle_logic_flaws.md,LICENSE.txt, and_meta.json.
- Use
-
Validate and package
- Run
quick_validate.pyon the child skill. - Run syntax checks on scripts.
- Package the child skill only after confirming there are no raw evidence caches, PDFs, manuscripts, pycache, or private data.
- Run
Generated Child Skill Requirements
The child skill must instruct future reviewers to:
- classify a submitted paper inside the target research area;
- retrieve the local area review-response bank before writing review comments;
- generate area-specific reviewer concerns and rebuttal/revision guidance;
- cite OpenReview precedent with year, status, title, forum URL, and note type;
- audit novelty, soundness, baselines, reproducibility, A+B incrementality, and subtle logic flaws;
- provide light, moderate, and major revision paths.
Evidence Rules
- Never fabricate OpenReview titles, forum IDs, decisions, scores, or author responses.
- Treat OpenReview evidence as precedent, not as law.
- Do not include raw review dumps in the generated child skill.
- If evidence is sparse, label the bank as
limited evidenceand include a broader fallback area.
References
references/research_area_profile_schema.md: area/problem profile schema.references/openreview_area_evidence_workflow.md: retrieval and synthesis protocol.references/generated_area_review_skill_contract.md: generated child skill contract.references/subtle_logic_flaws.md: reusable hidden-weakness checklist.
Related skills
Academic writing revision advisor for the Results section of psychology and STEMM research papers. Checks claim-hedging alignment, causal language appropriateness, statistical reporting completeness, and interpretation boundaries. Triggers when the user asks to review, revise, or check a Results section draft, or mentions hedging, claim strength, overclaiming, or causal language in academic writing.
Strictly judge whether a research paper is worth following, reading, or recommending. Use for paper triage, paper reviews, literature evaluation, arXiv scree...
Use when reviewing research on the human-free platform. Patrols research step-by-step over MCP — for each step it checks whether enough is disclosed to REPRO...
Produce a focused literature/knowledge review using only selected Research KB contents.
Jointly analyze a research paper and its open-source implementation. Use when a user wants to understand a paper through code, map theory/formulas/algorithms...