paper-revision
Skill9 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Revise papers based on reviewer feedback. Map reviewer concerns to specific sections, apply targeted edits, run additional experiments if needed, and verify improvements. Use after receiving peer review with revision requests.
6 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- TerryFYL/ai-research-armytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- willlee1995/skillsedited, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- HughYau/pengsida-learning-research-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- parkjui92/socsci-paper-kittheir own version, first seen Sep 26, 2026
- dongzhigang13305312738-art/paper-skillsedited, first seen Jul 21, 2026
- lingzhi227/agent-research-skillsedited, first seen Feb 20, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 3
- lingzhi227/agent-research-skills★ 35097% same
- dongzhigang13305312738-art/paper-skills★ 197% same
- willlee1995/skills★ 197% same
Wrote their own version · 3
- HughYau/pengsida-learning-research-skills★ 27same name
- TerryFYL/ai-research-army★ 9same name
- parkjui92/socsci-paper-kit★ 5same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository164 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .codex/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agents/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- claude-md/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- hooks/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- insight-architectSkill
- agent-teamsSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- claim-decomposerSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- dispatcherSkill
- git-worktreesSkill
- hd-mavp-routerSkill
- mentor-modeSkill
- reference-registrySkill
- routing-policySkill
- skill-self-updateSkill
- tdd-workflowSkill
- ab-testSkill
- academic-researchSkill
- advanced-methodology-extensionsSkill
- agent-governanceSkill
- ai-hyp-gateSkill
- algorithm-designSkill
- analystSkill
- archcode-genomicsSkill
- arm-cortex-microcontrollersSkill
- atomizeSkill
- backward-traceabilitySkill
- boyko-constraint-engineSkill
- boyko-epistemic-auditSkill
- boyko-goal-expansion-100Skill
- boyko-knowledge-architectureSkill
- boyko-leverage-mapSkill
- boyko-methodSkill
- boyko-preflightSkill
- boyko-project-radarSkill
- boyko-rippleSkill
- boyko-scientific-consortiumSkill
- boyko-specialistSkill
- boyko-toolcheckSkill
- boyko-triangle-auditSkill
- boyko-why-ladderSkill
- browser-actSkill
- build-autoSkill
- c4-architectureSkill
- career-prepSkill
- changelog-genSkill
- citation-managementSkill
- code-debuggingSkill
- code-materialitySkill
- codex-skepticSkill
- codex-solverSkill
- codex-tracySkill
- combinatorial-creativitySkill
- common-groundSkill
- conductorSkill
- consilienceSkill
- construct-measurement-gateSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. 11 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
11
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 32
Create a revision plan:
- Common: line 39
Additional experiment: Run new experiment, add results
- Common: line 40
New analysis: Add ablation, statistical test, or comparison
- Common: line 42
Citation: Add missing references
- Common: line 46
Read the current section
- Common: line 48
If new experiments needed: use experiment-code skill
- Common: line 49
If new figures/tables needed: use figure-generation / table-generation skills
- Common: line 54
Verify all reviewer concerns are addressed
- Common: line 55
Check that revisions don't introduce new issues
- Common: line 56
Ensure page count still fits venue requirements
- Common: line 70
Keep a copy of the previous version before revising
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Paper Revision
Systematically revise papers based on reviewer feedback.
Input
$0— Reviewer comments/feedback$1— Current paper draft (main.tex or paper directory)
References
- Revision workflow and prompts:
~/.claude/skills/paper-revision/references/revision-prompts.md
Workflow
Step 1: Parse and Prioritize Concerns
For each reviewer comment:
- Extract the specific concern
- Classify: major revision, minor revision, question, suggestion
- Map to affected paper section(s)
- Prioritize: address major concerns first
Step 2: Plan Revisions
Create a revision plan:
Concern → Affected Section → Required Action → New Content/ExperimentCategories of actions:
- Clarification: Rewrite text for clarity
- Additional experiment: Run new experiment, add results
- New analysis: Add ablation, statistical test, or comparison
- Structural change: Move, merge, or split sections
- Citation: Add missing references
Step 3: Execute Revisions
For each planned revision:
- Read the current section
- Apply targeted edits (preserve surrounding structure)
- If new experiments needed: use experiment-code skill
- If new figures/tables needed: use figure-generation / table-generation skills
- Mark changes (use
\textcolor{blue}{...}for revised text)
Step 4: Verify Improvements
- Re-run self-review skill to check if scores improved
- Verify all reviewer concerns are addressed
- Check that revisions don't introduce new issues
- Ensure page count still fits venue requirements
Step 5: Write Revision Summary
Generate a diff summary:
- List all changes made with section references
- Note any new experiments, figures, or tables added
- Cross-reference each change to the reviewer concern it addresses
Rules
- Address EVERY reviewer concern — do not skip any
- Preserve paper structure unless structural change is explicitly needed
- New results must come from actual experiments, not hallucinated
- Mark all revised text clearly for the reviewers
- Keep a copy of the previous version before revising
- Compare new scores vs previous scores after revision
Related Skills
- Upstream: self-review
- Downstream: paper-compilation
- See also: rebuttal-writing
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

