What is the Reviewer 2 Simulator?

It is a specialized skill for Claude Code that critiques academic papers from the perspective of a rigorous, skeptical peer reviewer to help authors improve their work before submission.

Does it provide actual scores for my paper?

Yes, it evaluates papers on novelty, significance, soundness, clarity, and reproducibility using a standard 1-5 scale and provides an overall recommendation.

Is the feedback intended to be hostile?

No, while the persona is skeptical and harsh, the feedback is designed to be fair and constructive, highlighting real technical issues that a human reviewer would likely catch.

Can this help with conference submissions?

Yes, it is specifically designed to prepare drafts for high-volume venues like NeurIPS or ICML by identifying the common issues that often lead to rejection.

Reviewer 2 Simulator

Name: Reviewer 2 Simulator
Author: GhostScientist

byGhostScientist

•

Learning & Documentation

Critiques research paper drafts by simulating a skeptical, high-standard peer reviewer to identify weaknesses before submission.

About

The Reviewer 2 Simulator is a specialized skill for Claude Code designed to stress-test academic manuscripts and research papers. It adopts the persona of the infamous 'Reviewer 2'—a skeptical, rigorous, and time-pressed expert who looks for reasons to reject work. By simulating this persona, the skill identifies overclaims, missing baselines, unclear methodology, and weak citations, allowing authors to address potential criticisms and strengthen their arguments before submitting to high-stakes conferences or journals.

Key Features

Structured scoring system for novelty, significance, and reproducibility
Identification of technical soundness issues and unstated assumptions
Simulated multi-phase peer review process including skim and deep-read critiques
Evaluation of experimental baselines, metrics, and statistical significance
1 GitHub stars
Actionable feedback reports with prioritized author rebuttal strategies

Use Cases

Identifying 'killer questions' and weaknesses in research methodology
Pre-submission stress-testing for academic conferences and journals
Preparing for the peer review process by anticipating reviewer criticism

About

Key Features

Structured scoring system for novelty, significance, and reproducibility
Identification of technical soundness issues and unstated assumptions
Simulated multi-phase peer review process including skim and deep-read critiques
Evaluation of experimental baselines, metrics, and statistical significance
1 GitHub stars
Actionable feedback reports with prioritized author rebuttal strategies

Use Cases

Identifying 'killer questions' and weaknesses in research methodology
Pre-submission stress-testing for academic conferences and journals
Preparing for the peer review process by anticipating reviewer criticism