So, we've been doing these paper reviews and Arnaud Becheler gave this wonderful review:
https://lists.wg21.org/archives/list/paper-reviews@lists.wg21.org/message/35...
I took his post, turned it into a set of actionable bullets using Claude, and then I asked Claude to build a tool which can write papers like this, and also evaluate a paper against his criteria. I call it:
*The Arno* https://github.com/cppalliance/tools-public/blob/master/tools/wg21/arno.md
I'm revising P4003 based on it!
Thanks
Fascinating tools you come up with!
My input to kiro-cli:
using ~/git/cppalliance/tools-public/tools/wg21/arno.md please review P3832.md and P3833.md as a whole. (those
.mds are in https://github.com/bemanproject/timed_lock_alg/tree/main/papers if you're interested to see what it had to work with)
=== Response from Arno:
Done. The report is at arno-p3832r4a-p3833r4a.md.
Summary of key findings:
No conclusion section (high) — Neither paper has a funnel-out. Delegates who skim to the end get no restatement of the ask or significance.
No explicit ask in abstracts (medium) — Both abstracts name the contribution but don't state what they want from the committee.
Unprepared sections in P3832 (medium) — Sections 3 and 4 open with bare bullet lists, no framing sentences.
P3833 try_lock_until underspecified (medium) — The multi-mutex case says "similar to lock()" without stating whether it delegates to P3832's free function or specifies its own algorithm.
P3833 destructor exception semantics (medium) — The design discussion says it "may throw" but the wording doesn't address this, and the destructor is implicitly noexcept.
The papers are otherwise solid: self-contained, well-calibrated for the audience, terminologically consistent, and the wording is production- quality. The missing conclusion is the most impactful gap — everything else is fixable with a few sentences each.
I've attached arno-p3832r4a-p3833r4a.md but I haven't read it thoroughly myself yet. It's too hot in Gothenburg to start the brain right now :)
Br, Ted
2026-06-27 00:31, Vinnie Falco via Delegates:
So, we've been doing these paper reviews and Arnaud Becheler gave this wonderful review:
https://lists.wg21.org/archives/list/paper-reviews@lists.wg21.org/message/35...
I took his post, turned it into a set of actionable bullets using Claude, and then I asked Claude to build a tool which can write papers like this, and also evaluate a paper against his criteria. I call it:
*The Arno* https://github.com/cppalliance/tools-public/blob/master/tools/wg21/arno.md
I'm revising P4003 based on it!
Thanks
Delegates mailing list -- delegates@lists.wg21.org To unsubscribe send an email to delegates-leave@lists.wg21.org https://lists.wg21.org/mailman3/lists/delegates.lists.wg21.org/ Archived at: https://lists.wg21.org/archives/list/delegates@lists.wg21.org/message/FA6D4B...
On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 2:35 AM Ted Lyngmo via Delegates < delegates@lists.wg21.org> wrote:
Fascinating tools you come up with!
Thanks! I am very much excited and optimistic about the future for LLMs. These tools only scratch the surface of what I think is possible. I have made numerous discoveries which I believe are novel (or at least, unpublished). More to come.
I've attached arno-p3832r4a-p3833r4a.md but I haven't read it thoroughly myself
yet. It's too hot in Gothenburg to start the brain right now :)
Yep, I heard the heat has been brutal. Do you think the assessment was accurate?
Thanks
participants (2)
-
Ted Lyngmo -
Vinnie Falco