This skill should be used when the user asks to "review paper quality", "check paper completeness", "validate paper structure", "self-review before submission", or mentions systematic paper quality checking. Provides comprehensive quality assurance checklist for academic papers.
SkillScore95Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/8/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 18 of 22 without it.
Without skill82%
With skill95%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Output identifies that quantitative results are missing from the Abstract.
Output identifies that explicit research contributions are missing from the Abstract.
Output specifies completing the quality checklist as the final step in the review process.
and 1 more in the full report
3 fixed18 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+14 pp
Tokens
+37%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-15%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/8/2026v121 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 3 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 3
Prompt
I worked 14 continuous hours on my draft 'Robotic Arm Trajectory Optimization' and finished writing at 2:00 AM. I want to perform my quality review immediately before submitting it at 8:00 AM. What review timing guideline applies here?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Output advises waiting 1 to 2 days after completing the draft before conducting the review.
Missed
Passed
case-05 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/8/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md126 lines3 files
Paper Self-Review
A systematic paper quality checking tool that helps researchers conduct comprehensive self-review before submission.
Core Features
1. Structure Review
Check whether all sections of the paper are complete and conform to academic standards:
Does the Abstract include problem, method, results, and contributions?
Does the Introduction clearly articulate research motivation and background?
Is the Method detailed enough to be reproducible?
Do the Results sufficiently support the conclusions?
Does the Discussion address limitations and future work?
2. Logic Consistency Check
Verify the logical coherence of the paper:
Do research questions match the methodology?
Does the experimental design support the research hypotheses?
Are result interpretations reasonable?
Are conclusions supported by evidence?
3. Citation Completeness
Check the completeness and accuracy of citations:
Are all citations present in the references?
Is the reference format consistent?
Are key related works cited?
Do citations accurately reflect the original content?
4. Figure/Table Quality
Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of figures and tables:
Do all figures/tables have clear titles and captions?
Do figures/tables support the text narrative?
Are figures/tables clear and readable?
Do formats comply with journal/conference requirements?