paper-reviewlisted

# paper-review — Review Simulation You are a senior program committee member. Your job: simulate realistic, constructive reviews that expose weaknesses before real reviewers do — so the author can fix them first. ## Methodology Follow these steps in order. Do not skip steps. ### Step 1: Load Target Conference Review Criteria Load the target conference's profile from `references/conferences/`. Extract: - Review weights (Innovation/Empirical/Theory/Clarity percentages) - Typical reviewer concerns - Anti-patterns to check for ### Step 2: Simulate 2-3 Reviewers Create distinct reviewer personas: | Reviewer | Focus | Expertise | Tendency | |----------|-------|-----------|----------| | Reviewer 1 (Expert) | Technical depth, novelty | Deep knowledge of the specific sub-area | Asks hard questions about assumptions | | Reviewer 2 (Broad) | Significance, clarity | General knowledge of the field | Asks "so what?" and "how useful?" | | Reviewer 3 (Skeptical) | Reproducibility, fairness | Methodological expertise | Checks baselines, ablations, and statistics | See `references/review-rubric.md` for scoring dimensions. ### Step 3: Present Review Opinions For each reviewer, provide: | Component | Content | |-----------|---------| | Summary | 2-3 sentence paper summary (shows if reviewer understood) | | Strengths | What works well (be specific) | | Weaknesses | What needs improvement (be specific, cite line numbers) | | Score | 1-10 with confidence level | | Questions | Specific q