What problem does it solve? Before submitting a CS-conference paper, authors need to know which reviewer-style criticisms are real, which are misreadings, and which require new experiments. PaperJury runs a closed review-verdict-revise-verify loop on LaTeX, Markdown, or Word manuscripts so every issue is adjudicated instead of blindly applied, and safe fixes land only behind author sign-off. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Adversarial courtroom review: N holistic domain reviewers read the whole paper, contested issues go to a two-sided jury trial, and each charge terminates as valid-fixable, author-required, or invalid-drop, tracked in a durable JSON ledger. - Guarded revision with real verification: minimal patches are screened by deterministic guards (anchor-diff, cross-reference checks, real LaTeX compile, desk-reject compliance screening) and risky edits queue for the author instead of being applied silently. - Three modes: direct-edit for single asked-for changes, review for pre-submission hardening, and auto for unattended multi-round loops under an explicit /goal. - Use Case: You have a 21-page NeurIPS draft. Ask for a full review; PaperJury dedupes 152 reviewer complaints into 55 issues, safely applies 26 fixes, hands 10 back to you, drops 19 as invalid, and reports a clean compile. ## Quick Start Ask the assistant to review this paper with paperjury, focusing on whether the experiments support the claims.
