Meet-Reviewer-2
NewMeet Reviewer 2 before they meet you ! A Claude Code skill that red-teams your paper draft — a simulated peer-review panel + an evidence-grounded fix list, before you submit.
Summary
Meet Reviewer 2 simulates a peer-review panel to red-team your paper draft before submission, providing critical feedback and an evidence-grounded fix list.
- It helps developers strengthen their research writing by catching flaws early, improving clarity, and addressing potential reviewer objections.
Install & Usage
mkdir -p .claude/skillsmkdir -p .claude/skills && curl -o .claude/skills/meet-reviewer-2.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xf686/Meet-Reviewer-2/main/SKILL.md/meet-reviewer-2Use Cases
Usage Examples
/meet-reviewer-2 review my paper draft at paper.md
Simulate a peer review for my latest manuscript and suggest improvements with evidence.
Run a red-team analysis on the introduction and related work sections of my paper.
Security Audits
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Meet-Reviewer-2?
Meet Reviewer 2 simulates a peer-review panel to red-team your paper draft before submission, providing critical feedback and an evidence-grounded fix list. It helps developers strengthen their research writing by catching flaws early, improving clarity, and addressing potential reviewer objections.
How to install Meet-Reviewer-2?
To install Meet-Reviewer-2: create the skills directory (mkdir -p .claude/skills), then run: mkdir -p .claude/skills && curl -o .claude/skills/meet-reviewer-2.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xf686/Meet-Reviewer-2/main/SKILL.md. Finally, /meet-reviewer-2 in Claude Code.
What is Meet-Reviewer-2 best for?
Meet-Reviewer-2 is a skill categorized under Development. It is designed for: code-review. Created by xf686.
What can I use Meet-Reviewer-2 for?
Meet-Reviewer-2 is useful for: Run a simulated peer review on a draft paper to identify weaknesses in argumentation or methodology.; Get a prioritized list of fixes with citations to strengthen a paper before journal submission.; Test a conference paper against common reviewer biases and acceptance criteria.; Evaluate the clarity and impact of a research abstract or introduction section.; Check for missing related work or insufficient justification of claims in a manuscript..