auto-review-loop-llm
$
npx mdskill add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/auto-review-loop-llm> 🔒 **Do not wrap this skill in `/loop`, `/schedule`, or `CronCreate`.** Like > `/auto-review-loop`, it already loops internally (review → fix → re-review), > feeding each round's prior-round summary into the next review prompt (the > backend is a stateless per-round API/MCP call, not a shared thread). An > external timer re-enters from the top each tick, dropping that accumulated > context and firing the verdict on wall-clock time instead of on artifact > change — zero new signal, full token cost. Schedule the *external wait that > precedes it*, not the verdict. See > [`shared-references/external-cadence.md`](../shared-references/external-cadence.md).
SKILL.md
.github/skills/auto-review-loop-llmView on GitHub ↗
---
name: auto-review-loop-llm
description: Autonomous research review loop using any OpenAI-compatible LLM API. Configure via llm-chat MCP server or environment variables. Trigger with "auto review loop llm" or "llm review".
argument-hint: [topic-or-scope]
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, Skill
---
# Auto Review Loop (Generic LLM): Autonomous Research Improvement
> 🔒 **Do not wrap this skill in `/loop`, `/schedule`, or `CronCreate`.** Like
> `/auto-review-loop`, it already loops internally (review → fix → re-review),
> feeding each round's prior-round summary into the next review prompt (the
> backend is a stateless per-round API/MCP call, not a shared thread). An
> external timer re-enters from the top each tick, dropping that accumulated
> context and firing the verdict on wall-clock time instead of on artifact
> change — zero new signal, full token cost. Schedule the *external wait that
> precedes it*, not the verdict. See
> [`shared-references/external-cadence.md`](../shared-references/external-cadence.md).
Autonomously iterate: review → implement fixes → re-review, until the external reviewer gives a positive assessment or MAX_ROUNDS is reached.
## Context: $ARGUMENTS
## Constants
- MAX_ROUNDS = 4
- POSITIVE_THRESHOLD: score >= 6/10 **AND** verdict ∈ {"ready", "almost"} — **both** must hold, matching the operative STOP check below. Verdict vocabulary is {"ready", "almost", "not ready"}. (Earlier wording used `or` and a stale verdict set; the `AND` form is authoritative.)
- REVIEW_DOC: `review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md` (cumulative log) *(fall back to `./AUTO_REVIEW.md` for legacy projects)*
## LLM Configuration
This skill uses **any OpenAI-compatible API** for external review via the `llm-chat` MCP server.
### Configuration via MCP Server (Recommended)
Add to `~/.claude/settings.json`:
```json
{
"mcpServers": {
"llm-chat": {
"command": "/usr/bin/python3",
"args": ["/Users/yourname/.claude/mcp-servers/llm-chat/server.py"],
"env": {
"LLM_API_KEY": "your-api-key",
"LLM_BASE_URL": "https://api.deepseek.com/v1",
"LLM_MODEL": "deepseek-chat"
}
}
}
}
```
### Supported Providers
| Provider | LLM_BASE_URL | LLM_MODEL |
|----------|--------------|-----------|
| **OpenAI** | `https://api.openai.com/v1` | `gpt-4o`, `o3` |
| **DeepSeek** | `https://api.deepseek.com/v1` | `deepseek-chat`, `deepseek-reasoner` |
| **MiniMax** | `https://api.minimax.io/v1` | `MiniMax-M2.7` |
| **Kimi (Moonshot)** | `https://api.moonshot.cn/v1` | `moonshot-v1-8k`, `moonshot-v1-32k` |
| **ZhiPu (GLM)** | `https://open.bigmodel.cn/api/paas/v4` | `glm-4`, `glm-4-plus` |
| **SiliconFlow** | `https://api.siliconflow.cn/v1` | `Qwen/Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct` |
| **阿里云百炼** | `https://dashscope.aliyuncs.com/compatible-mode/v1` | `qwen-max` |
| **零一万物** | `https://api.lingyiwanwu.com/v1` | `yi-large` |
## API Call Method
**Primary: MCP Tool**
```
mcp__llm-chat__chat:
prompt: |
[Review prompt content]
model: "deepseek-chat"
system: "You are a senior ML reviewer..."
```
**Fallback: curl**
```bash
curl -s "${LLM_BASE_URL}/chat/completions" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer ${LLM_API_KEY}" \
-d '{
"model": "${LLM_MODEL}",
"messages": [
{"role": "system", "content": "You are a senior ML reviewer..."},
{"role": "user", "content": "[review prompt]"}
],
"max_tokens": 4096
}'
```
## State Persistence (Compact Recovery)
Persist state to `review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json` after each round:
```json
{
"round": 2,
"status": "in_progress",
"last_score": 5.0,
"last_verdict": "not ready",
"pending_experiments": [],
"timestamp": "2026-03-15T10:00:00"
}
```
**Write this file at the end of every Phase E** (after documenting the round).
**On completion**, set `"status": "completed"`.
## Workflow
### Initialization
1. **Check `review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json`** for recovery *(fall back to `./REVIEW_STATE.json` if not found — legacy path)*
2. Read project context and prior reviews
3. Initialize round counter
### Loop (up to MAX_ROUNDS)
#### Phase A: Review
**If MCP available:**
```
mcp__llm-chat__chat:
system: "You are a senior ML reviewer (NeurIPS/ICML level)."
prompt: |
[Round N/MAX_ROUNDS of autonomous review loop]
[Full research context: claims, methods, results, known weaknesses]
[Changes since last round, if any]
1. Score this work 1-10 for a top venue
2. List remaining critical weaknesses (ranked by severity)
3. For each weakness, specify the MINIMUM fix
4. State clearly: is this READY for submission? Yes/No/Almost
Be brutally honest. If the work is ready, say so clearly.
```
**If MCP NOT available:**
```bash
curl -s "${LLM_BASE_URL}/chat/completions" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer ${LLM_API_KEY}" \
-d '{
"model": "${LLM_MODEL}",
"messages": [
{"role": "system", "content": "You are a senior ML reviewer (NeurIPS/ICML level)."},
{"role": "user", "content": "[Full review prompt]"}
],
"max_tokens": 4096
}'
```
#### Phase B: Parse Assessment
**CRITICAL: Save the FULL raw response** verbatim. Then extract:
- **Score** (numeric 1-10)
- **Verdict** ("ready" / "almost" / "not ready")
- **Action items** (ranked list of fixes)
**STOP**: If score >= 6 AND verdict ∈ {"ready", "almost"} (exact — "not ready" does NOT qualify)
#### Phase C: Implement Fixes
Priority: metric additions > reframing > new experiments
#### Phase D: Wait for Results
Monitor remote experiments
#### Phase E: Document Round
Append to `review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md`:
```markdown
## Round N (timestamp)
### Assessment (Summary)
- Score: X/10
- Verdict: [ready/almost/not ready]
- Key criticisms: [bullet list]
### Reviewer Raw Response
<details>
<summary>Click to expand full reviewer response</summary>
[Paste the COMPLETE raw response here — verbatim, unedited.]
</details>
### Actions Taken
- [what was implemented/changed]
### Results
- [experiment outcomes, if any]
### Status
- [continuing to round N+1 / stopping]
```
**Write `review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json`** with current state.
### Termination
1. Set `review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json` status to "completed"
2. Write final summary
## Key Rules
- **Large file handling**: If the Write tool fails due to file size, immediately retry using Bash (`cat << 'EOF' > file`) to write in chunks. Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.
- **Anti-hallucination citations**: When adding references, NEVER fabricate BibTeX. Use DBLP → CrossRef → `[VERIFY]` chain. Do NOT generate BibTeX from memory.
- Be honest about weaknesses
- Implement fixes BEFORE re-reviewing
- Document everything
- Include previous context in round 2+ prompts
- Prefer MCP tool over curl when available
## Prompt Template for Round 2+
```
mcp__llm-chat__chat:
system: "You are a senior ML reviewer (NeurIPS/ICML level)."
prompt: |
[Round N/MAX_ROUNDS of autonomous review loop]
## Previous Review Summary (Round N-1)
- Previous Score: X/10
- Previous Verdict: [ready/almost/not ready]
- Previous Key Weaknesses: [list]
## Changes Since Last Review
1. [Action 1]: [result]
2. [Action 2]: [result]
## Updated Results
[paste updated metrics/tables]
Please re-score and re-assess:
1. Score this work 1-10 for a top venue
2. List remaining critical weaknesses (ranked by severity)
3. For each weakness, specify the MINIMUM fix
4. State clearly: is this READY for submission? Yes/No/Almost
Be brutally honest. If the work is ready, say so clearly.
```
## Output Protocols
> Follow these shared protocols for all output files:
> - **[Output Versioning Protocol](../shared-references/output-versioning.md)** — write timestamped file first, then copy to fixed name
> - **[Output Manifest Protocol](../shared-references/output-manifest.md)** — log every output to MANIFEST.md
> - **[Output Language Protocol](../shared-references/output-language.md)** — respect the project's language setting
More from wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
- ablation-plannerUse when main results pass result-to-claim (claim_supported=yes or partial) and ablation studies are needed for paper submission. Codex designs ablations from a reviewer's perspective, CC reviews feasibility and implements.
- alphaxivQuick single-paper lookup via AlphaXiv LLM-optimized summaries with tiered source fallback. Use when user says "explain this paper", "summarize paper", pastes an arXiv/AlphaXiv URL, or provides a bare arXiv ID for quick understanding - not for broad literature search.
- analyze-resultsAnalyze ML experiment results, compute statistics, generate comparison tables and insights. Use when user says "analyze results", "compare", or needs to interpret experimental data.
- auto-paper-improvement-loopAutonomously improve a generated paper via GPT-5.4 xhigh review → implement fixes → recompile, for 2 rounds. Use when user says \"改论文\", \"improve paper\", \"论文润色循环\", \"auto improve\", or wants to iteratively polish a generated paper.
- auto-review-loopAutonomous multi-round research review loop. Repeatedly reviews via external reviewer backend (Codex or manual), implements fixes, and re-reviews until positive assessment or max rounds reached. Use when user says "auto review loop", "review until it passes", or wants autonomous iterative improvement.
- auto-review-loop-minimaxAutonomous multi-round research review loop using MiniMax API. Use when you want to use MiniMax instead of Codex MCP for external review. Trigger with "auto review loop minimax" or "minimax review".
- citation-auditZero-context verification that every bibliographic entry in the paper is real, correctly attributed, and used in a context the cited paper actually supports. Uses a fresh cross-model reviewer with web/DBLP/arXiv lookup to catch hallucinated authors, wrong years, fabricated venues, version mismatches, and wrong-context citations (cite present but the cited paper does not establish the claim). Use when user says \"审查引用\", \"check citations\", \"citation audit\", \"verify references\", \"引用核对\", or before submission to ensure bibliography integrity.
- claims-draftingDraft patent claims for an invention. Use when user says \"撰写权利要求\", \"draft claims\", \"写权利要求书\", \"claim drafting\", or wants to create patent claims. The core skill of the patent pipeline.
- comm-lit-review-claude-singleCommunications-domain literature review with Claude-style knowledge-base-first retrieval. Use when the task is about communications, wireless, networking, satellite/NTN, Wi-Fi, cellular, transport protocols, congestion control, routing, scheduling, MAC/PHY, rate adaptation, channel estimation, beamforming, or communication-system research and the user wants papers, related work, a survey, or a landscape summary. Search Zotero, Obsidian, and local paper folders first when available, then search IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, and broader web in that order.
- deepxivSearch and progressively read open-access academic papers through DeepXiv. Use when the user wants layered paper access, section-level reading, trending papers, or DeepXiv-backed literature retrieval.