name: paperjury description: Three modes for CS-conference papers (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV vision, ACL/EMNLP/NAACL NLP, ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/AAAI ML). DIRECT-EDIT mode (common): the user describes a change in Chinese or English and the manuscript (LaTeX or Markdown) is edited directly through a CS-venue writing toolkit with author sign-off (use for 改这段 / 把中文想法写成 latex / polish / de-AI / translate / compress a passage). REVIEW mode (occasional, pre-submission): harden the paper through an adversarial courtroom review engine (N holistic domain reviewers / contestability routing / two-sided trial / three-way verdict / clerk-converged multi-round loop) with consensus-gated, author-signed revisions (use for review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review). AUTO mode (unattended, opt-in via /goal): run the review-revise loop toward a verifiable goal, applying safe fixes under a drift-bounded policy and queueing risky ones. Resolves all inputs at runtime, no hardcoded paths. Not a from-scratch drafter (use ml-paper-writing) and not an official-venue rebuttal. version: 1.2.1 author: Yiran Wang license: MIT tags: [Academic Writing, Peer Review, Adversarial Review, CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, AAAI, Workflow, LaTeX]

PaperJury (CS-conference paper review and editing)

PaperJury edits and hardens any CS-conference paper. It runs in three modes. In direct-edit mode (the common case) the user describes a change in Chinese or English and the LaTeX is edited directly through a CS-venue writing toolkit, with author sign-off. In review mode (occasional, pre-submission) it exposes the manuscript to a harsh, multi-perspective courtroom review engine that adjudicates each issue (N holistic domain reviewers -> contestability routing -> two-sided trial -> three-way verdict, with a polish track and a clerk-converged multi-round loop), gates every change behind consensus, and tracks issues in a durable ledger. In auto mode (unattended, opt-in via /goal) it runs that same engine toward a verifiable goal, applying safe fixes under a drift-bounded policy and queueing the risky ones for one human pass on return. All modes share the same writing toolkit, hard rules, ledger, and author sign-off (auto via up-front policy sign-off plus the queue, see hard rule 1).

This skill is fully generic. It ships no hardcoded paths, no project files, and no embedded paper. Everything specific to a given paper (where the manuscript is, the venue, who signs off, the house style) is resolved at runtime or supplied by a config the project owns. The skill itself is the backbone; any concrete paper is just an instantiation of it.

Scope: CS conferences only. Three venue families, each with its own style profile:

• Vision: CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, WACV
• NLP: ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, COLING
• ML: ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, AAAI, COLM

When to use / when not

Three modes, one skill. Pick by what the user is asking for:

• Direct-edit mode (the common case). The user describes a change in Chinese (or English) and wants the LaTeX edited directly: "把这段改成...", "polish this paragraph", "把我对 intro 的想法写成 LaTeX", "tighten this". No review panel; go straight to drafting the patch through the writing toolkit, with author sign-off.
• Review mode (occasional, pre-submission). The user wants the paper critiqued or hardened: review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review, or iterating a draft to clear reviewer-raised issues. This runs the courtroom review engine (references/review-engine-v3.md).
• Auto mode (unattended). The user opts in via /goal (or config mode: auto) to run the review-revise loop AFK toward a verifiable goal. Establish the spine up front (the one human step), then the engine applies safe fixes under the bounded-aggressive policy and queues the rest. The drafter input passes the significance floor (node scripts/ledger.js floor: valid-fixable majors only) and the ledger view is initialized collapsed (--display collapse: minors fold into a Minor digest, majors stay itemized). See references/auto-mode.md. Never self-detect auto; it is explicit only.

Do NOT use for: writing a paper from scratch (use ml-paper-writing), figure or diagram generation (use academic-plotting), or an official-venue rebuttal (this is a pre-submission self-hardening loop, no score gate).

Soft update reminder: at the start of each PaperJury invocation, before choosing the mode or editing a manuscript, run node scripts/check-update.js from the skill root unless PAPERJURY_DISABLE_UPDATE_CHECK=1 is set. If it reports an available update, show the notice once and continue. If the check is skipped, silent, or cannot reach GitHub, continue without mentioning it; update checks are never allowed to block review or editing.

The three primitives

This paradigm is expressed as Skill + Workflow + Memory. Each carries one concern; together they replace the heavy per-round file-and-flag machinery a hand-rolled version accumulates.

1. Skill (this folder) = entry point + methodology. The protocol, the reviewer panel, the contestability routing, the writing toolkit, the human gates. Detail in references/review-engine-v3.md, references/reviewer-personas.md, references/writing-toolkit.md.
2. Workflow = fan-out engine. The semantic, no-human-in-the-middle steps run as Workflows (parallelism + schema-validated output by construction). The simple panel is workflows/review-panel.workflow.js; the v3 courtroom engine is assign-reviewers -> reading-check -> coverage-auditor -> merge -> {trial (+ escalate) || polish} -> recall-audit -> drafter -> {edit-audit | meaning-audit} -> clerk. The DETERMINISTIC guards run orchestrator-side via Bash between workflow calls (the Workflow sandbox has no fs): scripts/ holds decompose, extract-docx, ledger, journal, apply-patch, anchor-diff, cross-ref, spine, rekey, compile-guard, compliance-check (plus doctor, the install/repo health check: npm run doctor). Build note: this harness delivers a workflow's args as a JSON STRING, so every workflow parses it defensively. Protocol + every orchestrator seam: references/review-engine-v3.md.
3. Memory = durable state + learned conventions. Two layers:
   • Ledger (LEDGER.json resolved at runtime = the machine source of truth, plus a rendered LEDGER.md view; managed by scripts/ledger.js): the live, mutable issue state across rounds and sessions. Schema + status state machine: references/ledger-schema.md.
   • Claude memory (the active project's memory): stable conventions worth recalling next session, e.g. this paper's house style, venue, persona tuning.

Resolving inputs at runtime (no hardcoded paths)

The skill ships ZERO hardcoded paths or project files. On trigger it resolves each input by discovery first, then asking:

• manuscript: detect the main source, then route it through the INTAKE FORMAT GATE by extension. Four routes, none silent:

  • .tex: the native LaTeX path. Detect the main source (the .tex with \documentclass / \begin{document}, or the file the user names). If several candidates, ask.
  • .md / .markdown / .txt: the native text path. The full multi-round engine runs; compile checks are not applicable (compile-guard returns compiled:null plus a markdown sanity lint, an honest UNKNOWN, never a fake pass); LaTeX-only compliance checks are skipped and reported as skipped_checks.
  • .docx: if a .paper-review/ working copy AND a ledger already exist, REUSE them, never re-extract. If the sha256 of the docx no longer matches the ledger's meta.original_sha256, STOP and ask: continue on the working copy, or extract --force knowingly discarding the applied edits (an explicit new-intake event). Otherwise run node scripts/extract-docx.js extract <file.docx> (one time) and tell the user explicitly: the original Word file is never modified; all rounds run on .paper-review/<basename>.md (print the full working-copy path); they get back the edited Markdown plus a per-edit change list; the extraction report lists everything dropped or degraded. Write ledger meta {manuscript: <working copy>, working_format: 'markdown', source_format: 'docx', original, original_sha256, extracted_at, extraction_report}. If the report shows nonzero tracked-change counts, seed a round-1 author-required ledger row ("manuscript contains unresolved tracked changes; accepted-all for review").
  • any other extension (.doc, .pdf, .rtf, .odt, ...): explicitly unsupported. Say so and suggest exporting .docx / .md / .tex; never silently degrade.

  After intake, the working copy IS the manuscript for every rule and gate in this file (sign-off, spine freeze, round-0 baseline, edit safety, journal); the original uploaded file is permanently read-only.

• venue_family: the user can name it, or an agent reads the class file to GUESS the family (e.g. a cvpr/iccv style, an acl style, a neurips/iclr style). There is no hardcoded venue list and no deterministic detector; if unclear, ask.

• ledger: default to <manuscript-dir>/.paper-review/LEDGER.json (the machine source of truth; scripts/ledger.js also renders a LEDGER.md view). Create if absent, reuse if present. The user may point elsewhere.

• author: ask who signs off on edits (default: the current user). Every edit needs explicit authorization.

• personas: default to N domain-expert holistic reviewers assigned at runtime (assign-reviewers, from the project gatekeeper core + a generated domain overlay); the three generic lenses in references/reviewer-personas.md are the degrade fallback. If the project defines its own named reviewer subagents, use them as agentType; otherwise inline the persona prompts.

• style_profile: start from the venue-family default; refine from any conventions recalled from memory or pinned in a project config.

A project MAY pin these by dropping a config in ITS OWN repo (see configs/config-template.md for the shape). That file is owned by the project, never by this skill. At round start, recall any pinned conventions from memory.

Direct-edit mode (the common case)

The user states a change in Chinese or English; you draft and apply the LaTeX edit. No panel, no ledger, no discussion. Minimal flow:

1. Locate. Resolve the manuscript and find the target passage the instruction refers to (a paragraph, sentence, caption, table cell). If it is ambiguous on a large file, ask which passage; do not guess. On a .docx: if a working copy already exists, it IS the manuscript, edit it; if none exists, offer an explicit choice between (a) paste-back, returning the rewritten passage as text for the user to apply in Word (no working copy), and (b) running the one-time intake extraction and editing the working copy. Never edit the .docx file itself.
2. Draft. Pick the writing-toolkit prompt matching the instruction (translate-to-english for a Chinese idea, polish-english / de-ai for a rewrite, compress / expand for length, caption / experiment-analysis for those units) and draft the patch to do exactly what was asked. The Common guards apply (markup-safe for the working format, plain CS prose, no log leakage into the manuscript).
3. Self-gate. Run logic-check on the drafted passage.
4. Sign-off. Show the patch and get explicit author approval (hard rule 1).
5. Apply. Write only the patch into the manuscript; keep any back-translation or note author-side.

This is the writing toolkit used on its own. Escalate to review mode only when the user wants the paper critiqued or hardened, not for a single asked-for edit.

Why fan-out is a Workflow and the rest is conversation

The reviewer panel and the trial jury are pure fan-out: spawn, collect, merge. A Workflow does this deterministically (parallelism enforced by construction, structured outputs via schema, isolation by default since each agent sees only the prompt you give it). That isolation is what replaces the snapshot-and-whitelist defense: a reviewer cannot see peers, the ledger, or prior rounds because you simply do not put them in its prompt.

But the loop has genuine human gates (the author reviews the issue list, gives per-issue direction, authorizes edits, breaks ties). Workflows run to completion and return a result; they do not pause mid-run for hours of human input. So:

• fan-out steps (reviewers, trial, polish, recall, merge) -> Workflow
• human gates (per-issue direction, authorization, override) -> main conversation turns
• cross-round truth (the ledger) + stable conventions -> Memory

Review mode: one round, end to end

The full adversarial loop (the v3 courtroom engine). Use it to harden the paper, not for a single asked-for edit (that is direct-edit mode). Full protocol + the 14 orchestrator seams: references/review-engine-v3.md. [WF] = Workflow step, [det] = deterministic Node guard run orchestrator-side between workflow calls, [HUMAN] = author gate, [LEDGER] = state write.

1. Resolve + recall. Resolve the inputs above; recall this paper's conventions from memory. Pick scope: full (whole paper) or passage (one section / para / claim).
2. [det] decompose. Split the manuscript into reading units + stable passage_ids + the canonical section list.
3. [WF] assign-reviewers + [HUMAN] confirm. Name N subfields (2-4, default 3); instantiate N holistic domain reviewers from the gatekeeper core + a generated overlay. An unconfirmable slot degrades per slot to a generic gatekeeper (the three generic lenses in reviewer-personas.md are the fallback). The author confirms the assignment (or pins it via config).
4. [WF] reading-check. Each reviewer reads the WHOLE paper → weaknesses {significance(major|minor), kind(mechanical|substantive), verbatim quote — cannot quote = did not read} + one overall_confidence + a per-section coverage report. Anti-skim is three layers: [det] per-section quote-verify, [WF] coverage-auditor, [WF] targeted re-invoke.
5. [WF] merge. Semantic dedup across reviewers; derive significance (MAX) / kind (substantive-dominates) / corroboration. [LEDGER] intake as raised.
6. [det] route. mechanical → polish; substantive&minor → polish; substantive&major → trial (two parallel tracks).
7. [WF] trial. Per substantive-major charge: a whole-paper DEFENSE → 5 decorrelated local-context jurors (+ on-demand expansion) → a deterministic verdict (decide iff quorum surviving >= ceil(0.8*jurySize) AND one side > 60% of surviving votes; else escalate to 12). Verdict ∈ {invalid-drop, valid-fixable, author-required, escalate}; the judge sets a close_criterion ONLY for a valid-fixable charge, satisfiable by editing existing text (no new data). [WF] polish runs the off-gate mechanical/minor track in parallel (never silently dropped).
8. [WF] recall-audit. Mode A revives wrongly-dropped charges; Mode B spot-checks strong-consensus majors BEFORE the edit. Runs before the drafter.
9. [HUMAN] Authorize + [WF] drafter + edit-safety. On authorization, the drafter writes the minimal patch per surviving valid-fixable. The edit-safety chain gates it: [det] anchor-diff + cross-ref → [WF] meaning-audit (frozen anchor, four-state) / edit-audit (risky non-anchor); [det] apply-patch + compile-guard land a passing patch and [LEDGER] mark closed; a drift / anchor / failed edit is reverted and queued. Revision logs / back-translations stay author-side.
10. [WF] clerk + report. The clerk reconciles the round boundary (carried open-questions vs this round's edits, via a passage_id + similarity merge key) and emits convergence counts. Summarize new/closed counts with the minor/polish part as a one-line digest (counts), never per-item paragraphs; in review mode do not auto-start the next round (auto mode drives the outer loop via /goal). The rendered LEDGER.md obeys meta.display_mode (flip anytime: node scripts/ledger.js mode <ledger.json> <show|collapse>; review defaults to the flat table, auto initializes collapsed). At round end run node scripts/rekey.js <working file> <ledger> <journal> to re-link open rows whose passage_id no longer resolves after this round's edits (both formats).

GATE: node scripts/ledger.js gate = 0 gate-blocking active major (gate-blocking = {raised, in-trial, re-trial, valid-fixable}; author-required / queued / dropped / closed are gate-OK and author-required accumulates to the queue). Full protocol + ledger schema + status machine: references/review-engine-v3.md, references/ledger-schema.md. The legacy single-pass 3-reviewer panel (workflows/review-panel.workflow.js, the discussion-mode flow in references/methodology.md) is kept only as a quick check.

Hard rules (load-bearing, venue-agnostic)

1. Never edit the manuscript without explicit author sign-off. Auto-mode carve-out: the rule HOLDS; auto satisfies it via UP-FRONT sign-off (the spine confirmation + the pre-authorized bounded-aggressive policy) plus the return queue, not per-edit sign-off. Nothing outside the authorized envelope is applied.
2. Reviewers / jurors are isolated. Fresh eyes per round: no cross-talk, no prior-round leakage, no sight of the ledger. Enforced by (a) what goes into each agent's prompt AND (b) an explicit ISOLATION instruction in every reviewer-type prompt telling the agent to judge only the quoted text and not read files (workflow agents have read tools and will otherwise sometimes roam).
3. A valid-fixable issue carries a close_criterion (one concrete sentence an edit must satisfy), set by the judge at trial; it is null at intake.
4. No leakage into the reviewed text. Revision logs, back-translations, and self-check verdicts are author-side aids; they never enter the manuscript or any frozen snapshot.
5. Disagreement resolves through discussion, then override (logged), never a silent dismissal.
6. No hardcoded paths or project files in the skill. Resolve at runtime.

Memory convention

• At round start: recall the paper's conventions (house style, venue, persona tuning) from memory; read the resolved LEDGER.json for open issues.
• During the round: the ledger is the only mutable truth; update it at merge, trial verdicts, recall, and close.
• After the round: persist any newly learned stable convention to memory (e.g. a house-style rule a reviewer surfaced), not the transient issue state.

Maximizing it under ultracode

The fan-out engine implements the strong form directly (workflows/review-panel.workflow.js):

• loop-until-dry: re-runs independent fresh panels and accumulates only issues not seen before, stopping after dryStop consecutive passes that add no surviving issue (hard cap maxRounds). Raises recall past a single pass.
• adversarial verify: each new issue faces perspective-diverse skeptics (misreading / already-addressed / scope-or-severity) and is kept unless a majority refute it, filtering plausible-but-wrong issues before they reach the ledger. Bias is to keep, so real flaws are not lost.

Toggle via args: ultracode on -> defaults (maxRounds 4, dryStop 2, verify true); ultracode off -> pass {maxRounds:1, verify:false} for the basic single-panel form. The loop is budget-aware and stops early if the token budget runs low.

Capabilities and status

Built: the review engine; the submission-readiness checker (deterministic desk-reject screening plus a real LaTeX compile, degrading to a structural lint when no toolchain is present); auto mode (the review-revise loop toward a goal under a drift-bounded policy, applying safe fixes and queueing risky ones for author review); and the significance floor (ledger.js floor gates the drafter to valid-fixable majors; the collapsed ledger view folds minors into a digest so trivia never floods the author's attention -- render-only, full detail kept in LEDGER.json). Roadmap: vision-based layout verification, automatic venue detection from the class file, and reviewer personas tuned to each venue community.

Related skills

• ml-paper-writing: from-scratch drafting, citation verification (never hallucinate citations), conference checklists. This loop borrows its sentence-level guidance for the edit-drafting step rather than duplicating it.
• academic-plotting: figure and architecture-diagram generation (out of scope here; this loop edits text and captions, not figure images).

English · 中文

PaperJury

A pre-submission AI review stress-test for research papers.

Before a reviewer tears it apart, let a jury do it first.

PaperJury turns paper feedback into a closed loop: review → verdict → revise → verify. Instead of taking every AI suggestion at face value, it sorts each issue into one of three outcomes:

• Fixable: safe, text-level issues that can be patched automatically.
• Author-required: missing experiments, missing evidence, or research decisions that stay with you.
• Invalid: reviewer misreadings or unsupported critiques that should not be applied.

It offers three modes: direct-edit, review, and auto. PaperJury is built for pre-submission self-checking. It does not replace peer review, it does not invent missing experiments, and it keeps research-level decisions with the author.

Interactive overview: the live site (GitHub Pages), or docs/overview.html in-repo.

🎉 News

📄 2026-06-12: The PaperJury paper is out. Read the preprint: PaperJury: Due-Process Review for Bounded LaTeX Revision — the full review → verdict → revise → verify engine written up as a paper: the deterministic-vs-semantic split, contestability routing, the due-process trial, and risk-proportional edit guards.

🔔 2026-06-10: v1.0.0 released. First stable release, aligned with the Codex port's v1.0. Adds a non-blocking update reminder that points to the latest stable release when a newer tag exists.

🚀 2026-06-05: PaperJury's Codex-first port has shipped. Open it here: paperjury-codex.

🧪 Dogfood sample added: this repo now includes a compact dogfood sample with before/after PDFs and a human-verified run report.

TODO

• 🔔 Soft update reminders. Check for newer stable release tags at PaperJury startup and show a non-blocking update notice.
• Fast mode / quick version. A lower-latency, lower-token path for fast checks when you want useful triage more than full courtroom depth.

Responsible Use

PaperJury is a pre-submission self-check workflow. It does not replace the author's scientific judgment, and it does not replace peer review. It should never be used to invent experiments, fabricate results, add unsupported claims, or hide a paper's limitations.

When an issue needs a new experiment, missing evidence, private knowledge, or a research-level decision, PaperJury routes it to the author instead of patching it automatically. The Fixable / Author-required / Invalid outcomes exist precisely so that judgment calls stay with you.

The intended use is to surface avoidable problems earlier, while you can still act on them: unclear claims, weak logical connections, unsupported wording, formatting risks, and the kind of reviewer-style concerns worth checking before submission.

Install

It is a Claude Code skill, installable two ways. For the Codex-first port, use paperjury-codex.

Option A: Claude Code plugin (marketplace route). From inside Claude Code:

/plugin marketplace add u7079256/paperjury
/plugin install paperjury@u7079256

Option B: clone as a skill. Clone the repo into the folder Claude Code reads skills from:

# macOS / Linux
git clone https://github.com/u7079256/paperjury ~/.claude/skills/paperjury

# Windows (PowerShell)
git clone https://github.com/u7079256/paperjury "$env:USERPROFILE\.claude\skills\paperjury"

(or under <project>/.claude/skills/ to scope it to one project). Claude Code auto-discovers it through SKILL.md and it shows up as the paperjury skill. node is required (the deterministic checks run on it); a LaTeX toolchain is optional (the real-compile and layout checks use it, and degrade honestly when it is absent). To verify an install, run npm run doctor from the skill folder: it checks repo integrity, required tools, and that your manuscript can be detected.

At the start of a PaperJury run, the skill performs a soft update check against stable GitHub release tags. If a newer tag exists, it prints how to update (re-run the plugin install, or git pull for clone installs); if GitHub is unreachable, it stays silent and continues. Set PAPERJURY_DISABLE_UPDATE_CHECK=1 to disable this reminder. After updating, start a new session so the updated skill content is loaded.

For Claude / coding agents: the deep "how to drive this" reference is docs/AGENT-GUIDE.md: install, the three modes and their triggers, the engine pipeline, the auto vs /goal distinction, and how the fan-out launches, written for an agent to read. Curious about the internals? Just point Claude at that file and ask.

What you get

Most writing tools only push your paper forward: they draft and they polish. None of them argues the other side of your claims the way a reviewer will. PaperJury is built around that gap, in four parts.

• Adversarial by construction. Your paper gets due process, not one pass of suggestions: N domain reviewers read the whole paper, a contestability router sends the real disputes to a two-sided trial, a jury of 5 (escalating to 12 only when it cannot reach a clear majority) deliberates under isolation, and a judge returns one of three verdicts: fix it, needs you, or no fix. A verdict can land "no fix", which a yes-and rewriter structurally cannot return.
• Closed-loop, not forward-only. Each round is a clean re-review of the edited paper (the panel never sees the prior ledger, so a re-raised issue is real corroboration, not anchoring), and a deterministic clerk reconciles every round into one ledger until a clean round surfaces nothing new. Before any edit, fresh skeptics try to revive whatever got wrongly dropped and stress-test strong-consensus verdicts.
• Guardrails, not autopilot. Safe fixes land under risk-proportional safety (frozen anchors, a per-passage edit cap, an anchor and cross-section meaning audit), always behind your sign-off. Risky edits are not applied silently; they queue for one human pass.
• Real compile, not just critique. It runs an actual LaTeX build on your machine and reports true errors, undefined refs, overfull boxes, and the page count, or degrades honestly to a structural lint when no toolchain is present. Deterministic desk-reject checks catch the classics: anonymization leaks, margin and spacing hacks, documentclass drift, missing required sections, and page-limit overflow, checked against your project's own constraints.

Three modes

Direct-Edit (common)

• Trigger: describe a change in Chinese or English and have the manuscript (LaTeX or Markdown) edited directly.
• Example utterances: "把这段改成…", "polish this paragraph", "把我对 intro 的想法写成 LaTeX", "tighten this".
• Behavior: no review panel; go straight to drafting the patch through the writing toolkit, with author sign-off.

Review (occasional)

• Trigger: ask for the paper to be critiqued or hardened: review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review, or iterating a draft to clear reviewer-raised issues.
• Behavior: runs the courtroom review engine (references/review-engine-v3.md).
• Scope sub-trigger: full (whole paper) or passage (one section / paragraph / claim).

Auto (unattended)

• Trigger (explicit only): opt in via /goal (or config mode: auto) to run the review-revise loop unattended toward a verifiable goal.
• Hard constraint: auto is never self-detected; it is explicit only. There is no runtime signal for it, so it is entered only via a /goal context or a project config mode: auto.
• Behavior: establish the spine and the reviewer assignment up front (the human steps), then the engine applies safe fixes under the bounded-aggressive + edit-safety policy, queues the rest, and runs multiple rounds until it stops: on clerk convergence, or an applied-quiescence / hard-limit backstop. See references/auto-mode.md.

Usage examples: what to do when

You don't run commands; you say what you want and the skill picks the mode.

Edit one thing (the everyday case → direct-edit):

• "Polish this paragraph." / "把这段 intro 改紧一些。"
• "Turn my Chinese note for the intro into LaTeX: <your idea>."
• "De-AI this paragraph." / "Compress this sentence to one line." / "Rewrite this caption."
• → it drafts the change, self-checks it, shows you the patch, and applies it after you approve. No panel.

Get the paper critiqued before submission (→ review):

• "Review my paper." / "审稿。" / "Mock-review this before I submit."
• "Critique just Section 3.2." / "review passage <the claim you paste>."
• "Here are the issues a reviewer raised; iterate the draft to clear them."
• → it runs the adversarial engine, surfaces the real weaknesses (separating fatal flaws from nits), and walks you through each: you give direction, it drafts fixes you authorize. Nothing changes without your sign-off.

Harden it unattended toward a goal (→ auto, needs /goal):

• `/goal "harden the paper until ledger.js gate passe