Mmcp.market

auto-review-loop-llm skill

by wanshuiyin·wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep·17k stars·MIT

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\".

A100/100content scan

Is the auto-review-loop-llm skill safe?

Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 1 file in the folder on 2026-09-28.

No findings.

Install the auto-review-loop-llm skill

A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep.git /tmp/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -r /tmp/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/skills/skills-codex/auto-review-loop-llm ~/.claude/skills/auto-review-loop-llm
available in every project

In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub

The instructions your agent would load

SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub

Auto Review Loop (Generic LLM): Autonomous Research Improvement

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 CONDITION below. Verdict vocabulary is {"ready", "almost", "not ready"}. (Earlier wording used "or" + a stale verdict set; the AND form is authoritative.)
  • REVIEWDOC: review-stage/AUTOREVIEW.md (cumulative log) (fall back to ./AUTOREVIEW.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 ~/.codex/settings.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "llm-chat": {
      "command": "/usr/bin/python3",
      "args": ["/Users/yourname/.codex/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

API Call Method

Primary: MCP Tool

mcp__llm-chat__chat:
  message: |
    [Review prompt content]
  model: "deepseek-chat"
  system: "You are a senior ML reviewer..."

Fallback: curl

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:

{
  "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/REVIEWSTATE.json for recovery (fall back to ./REVIEWSTATE.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)."
  message: |
    [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:

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:

## 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/REVIEWSTATE.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.
  • 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)."
  message: |
    [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 — write timestamped file first, then copy to fixed name

- Output Manifest Protocol — log every output to MANIFEST.md

- Output Language Protocol — respect the project's language setting

More skills from wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

  • Aablation-plannerUse when main results pass result-to-claim (claim_supported=yes or partial) and ablation studies are needed for paper submission.
  • Aablation-plannerUse when main results pass result-to-claim (`claim_supported = yes` or `partial`) and ablation studies are needed for paper submission. A secondary Codex agent designs ablations from a reviewer's perspective; the local executor reviews feasibility and implements.
  • AalphaxivQuick 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.
  • AalphaxivQuick 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.
  • Aanalyze-resultsAnalyze ML experiment results, compute statistics, generate comparison tables and insights. Use when user says "analyze results", "compare", or needs to interpret experimental data.
  • Aanalyze-resultsAnalyze ML experiment results, compute statistics, generate comparison tables and insights. Use when user says \"analyze results\", \"compare\", or needs to interpret experimental data.
  • AarxivSearch, download, and summarize academic papers from arXiv. Use when user says "search arxiv", "download paper", "fetch arxiv", "arxiv search", "get paper pdf", or wants to find and save papers from arXiv to the local paper library.
  • AarxivSearch, download, and summarize academic papers from arXiv. Use when user says \"search arxiv\", \"download paper\", \"fetch arxiv\", \"arxiv search\", \"get paper pdf\", or wants to find and save papers from arXiv to the local paper library.
  • Aauto-paper-improvement-loopAutonomously improve a generated paper via GPT-6-Astra 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.
  • Aauto-paper-improvement-loopAutonomously improve a generated paper via Claude review through claude-review MCP → 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.
  • Aauto-paper-improvement-loopAutonomously improve a generated paper via Gemini review through gemini-review MCP → 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.
  • Aauto-paper-improvement-loopAutonomously improve a generated paper via GPT-6-Astra 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.

All agent skills → · MCP servers