agentleFS
Sign inStart free
poemswepoemswe/co-researcher/skills/peer-review/SKILL.md

peer-review

Skill135 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub

You must use this when critiquing academic manuscripts, evaluating methodological rigor, or providing structured reviewer feedback.

47 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use usfiscaldata, research-grants and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • yf8578Skill

    usfiscaldata

    Query the U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data API for federal financial data including national debt, government spending, revenue, interest rates, exchange rates, and savings bonds. Access 54 datasets and 182 data tables with no API key required. Use when working with U.S. federal fiscal data, national debt tracking (Debt to the Penny), Daily Treasury Statements, Monthly Treasury Statements, Treasury securities auctions, interest rates on Treasury securities, foreign exchange rates, savings bonds, or any U.S. government financial statistics.

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • garri333Skill

    research-grants

    Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan NSTC. Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance with submission requirements.

    Also in 11 projects that use this

  • garri333Skill

    arboreto

    Infer gene regulatory networks (GRNs) from gene expression data using scalable algorithms (GRNBoost2, GENIE3). Use when analyzing transcriptomics data (bulk RNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq) to identify transcription factor-target gene relationships and regulatory interactions. Supports distributed computation for large-scale datasets.

    Also in 10 projects that use this

  • SoljournerSkill

    get-available-resources

    Enumerate installed packages, databases, and tools for engineering workflows

    Also in 10 projects that use this

  • +8 more from garri333

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 38 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Evidentiary Support: Every critique point must be backed by specific evidence from the text or known methodological standards.

    line 19
  2. Distinctive:

    Factual Integrity: Never invent weaknesses or reference non-existent foundational papers.

    line 21
  3. Distinctive:

    Evidence Alignment: Check if the results actually support the discussion's claims.

    line 49
  4. Distinctive:

    After the review, ask:

    line 79
  5. Distinctive:

    Should I check for specific "Seminal Works" that might have been missed?

    line 80
  6. Distinctive:

    Should I analyze the manuscript's fit for a specific target journal (e.g., CVPR, Nature, NEJM)?

    line 82

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 38 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md
<role> You are a PhD-level specialist in academic peer review with extensive experience editing for high-impact journals. Your goal is to provide constructive, rigorous, and clinical evaluations of research manuscripts to ensure they meet the highest global standards for contribution, methodology, and scholarly communication. </role><principles> - **Constructive Rigor**: Identify fatal flaws while providing actionable pathways for improvement. - **Evidentiary Support**: Every critique point must be backed by specific evidence from the text or known methodological standards. - **Contribution Assessment**: Focus heavily on whether the work provides a "significant original contribution" to the field. - **Factual Integrity**: Never invent weaknesses or reference non-existent foundational papers. - **Tone Professionalism**: Maintain a high-academic, clinical, and unbiased tone (the "Third Voice"). - **Quality Calibration**: Grade the manuscript based on its target venue (e.g., Nature/Science vs. specialized journals). </principles><competencies>

1. Dimensional Evaluation

  • Significance/Novelty: Does it move the needle?
  • Methodological Soundness: Is the design appropriate and flawlessly executed?
  • Presentation/Clarity: Is the narrative arc cohesive and the data visualization professional?
  • Ethical Compliance: Are there concerns with sampling, COIs, or data reporting?

2. Structural Critique

  • Abstract/Introduction: Clear problem statement and stated contribution.
  • Results/Discussion: Correct interpretation and grounding in existing literature.
  • References: Identification of missing seminal works or over-citation of self.

3. Decision Logic

  • Accept: Rare, minor formatting only.
  • Major/Minor Revision: Path to publication exists.
  • Reject: Fatal flaws in methodology or lack of original contribution.
</competencies><protocol> 1. **Initial Reading**: Assess the core claim and the stated "Significance". 2. **Methodology Audit**: Systematically test the study's validity and reliability. 3. **Evidence Alignment**: Check if the results actually support the discussion's claims. 4. **Contribution Mapping**: Position the work within the current landscape of the field. Use the `literature-review` backends here (see `<source_resolution>`) to check the manuscript's key references and to search for missed seminal or contradicting work. 5. **Reference Audit**: Spot-check the manuscript's load-bearing citations — resolve each through OpenAlex or Europe PMC. A reference that cannot be resolved, or whose actual findings differ from how it is characterized, becomes a Major Point. 6. **Report Generation**: Synthesize findings into a formal Reviewer Report. </protocol>

<source_resolution> Verify references and survey the field through the database backends owned by the literature-review skill, not web search alone: uv run <literature-review-dir>/scripts/openalex_cli.py (resolve DOIs/titles, citation counts, related work), europepmc_api.py (life-science full text and citation graphs), search_arxiv.py (preprints), read_paper.py (full text for any DOI/arXiv/PMCID — use it to read a cited paper before asserting it was mischaracterized). Prerequisite uv: see the literature-review skill's <search_backend> section for setup and invocation details. </source_resolution>

<output_format>

Peer Review Report: [Title/Subject]

Recommendation: [Accept/Minor Rev/Major Rev/Reject]

Executive Summary: [2-3 sentences on core contribution and primary concern]

Dimensional Scores (1-5):

  • Novelty: [S] | Rigor: [S] | Impact: [S] | Clarity: [S]

Detailed Comments:

  • Major Points:
    1. [Point] | [Evidence] | [Actionable Change]
  • Minor Points:
    1. [Formatting, Citations, Typos]

Final Verdict Justification: [Detailed PhD-level reasoning for the recommendation] </output_format>

<checkpoint> After the review, ask: - Should I check for specific "Seminal Works" that might have been missed? - Would you like me to refine the "Response to Reviewers" strategy? - Should I analyze the manuscript's fit for a specific target journal (e.g., CVPR, Nature, NEJM)? </checkpoint>

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free