kill-argument
Two-thread adversarial review: a fresh reviewer constructs the strongest 200-word rejection memo, then a second fresh reviewer defends the paper point-by-point and surfaces still-unresolved critical issues. Use when user says \"kill argument\", \"adversarial review\", \"hostile review\", \"rebuttal preparation\", \"reviewer-2 simulation\", or before submitting a theory paper that has already passed standard review rounds.
Best for pre-submission stress-testi…Works with GitHubLow risk
⌘source
- author
@wanshuiyin- language
- Python
★8.3kstars
779forks
May 5, 2026
✦overview.md
Key Features
- ·Two-thread adversarial attack-defense review
- ·Generates 200-word rejection memo
- ·Structured rebuttal and unresolved issues
- ·Designed for post-standard-review papers
Use Cases
- →Stress-test a theory paper before submission
- →Prepare for reviewer-2 or hostile reviewer scenarios
- →Identify the single most damaging rejection argument
- →Practice rebuttal writing
Best for
- ✓pre-submission stress-testing
- ✓theory papers
- ✓adversarial review practice
Not ideal for
- !standard balanced review
- !early-stage drafts
FAQs
name
kill-argument
description
Two-thread adversarial review: a fresh reviewer constructs the strongest 200-word rejection memo, then a second fresh reviewer defends the paper point-by-point and surfaces still-unresolved critical issues. Use when user says "kill argument", "adversarial review", "hostile review", "rebuttal preparation", "reviewer-2 simulation", or before submitting a theory paper that has already passed standard review rounds.
argument-hint:["paper-directory"]
allowed-tools:Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, mcp__codex__codex
Kill Argument Exercise: Adversarial Attack-Defense Review
Stress-test the headline claims of a paper against the strongest possible rejection argument: $ARGUMENTS
Why This Exists
Standard score-based reviews (/peer-review, /research-review, /auto-paper-improvement-loop) tend to produce balanced weakness lists. Each weakness gets ~equal attention, ranked CRITICAL > MAJOR > MINOR. Empirically, this misses one specific failure mode: the single most damaging argument a reviewer would write in a rejection paragraph — the one sentence that, if a senior area chair reads it, kills the paper.
A balanced reviewer might list "scope-overclaim risk" as MAJOR alongside 3-5 other MAJORs, never quite committing. An adversarial reviewer must commit: their entire job is to convince the area chair to reject in 200 words.
This skill runs that adversarial pass deliberately, then forces a second fresh reviewer to defend point-by-point, classify each rejection as already-fixed / partially-fixed / still-unresolved, and surface what's actually load-bearing.
$install
1-click copynpx skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill kill-argumentSafety assessment
★
Clarity score
How clear and easy to understand the SKILL.md instructions are, rated from 1 to 5.
4/ 5
very goodClear and well structured, with only minor parts that might need a second read.
◎
Actionability score
How directly an agent can act on the SKILL.md instructions, rated from 1 to 5.
4/ 5
highMostly actionable with clear steps; only a few small gaps remain.