Peer Review
Draft structured journal or grant peer reviews with methodology, statistics, reporting-guideline, and ethics checklists.
Overview
Peer Review is an agent skill for the Ship phase that produces structured manuscript and grant reviews using methodology, statistics, and reporting-standard checklists.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/k-dense-ai/scientific-agent-skills --skill peer-reviewWhat is this skill?
- Checklist-based evaluation for manuscripts and grant proposals across disciplines
- Methodology, experimental design, statistics, reproducibility, and ethics assessment
- Reporting standards compliance checks including CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA
- Constructive feedback oriented toward revision—not ad-hoc paragraph reactions
- Explicit routing: use scientific-critical-thinking for claim quality; scholar-evaluation for scoring frameworks
- Covers CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA reporting-standard checks
Adoption & trust: 625 installs on skills.sh; 27.6k GitHub stars; 3/3 security scanners passed (skills.sh audits).
What problem does it solve?
You must referee a paper or proposal but lack a repeatable framework for methodology, stats, reproducibility, and CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA compliance.
Who is it for?
Researchers writing official peer reviews, evaluating grant applications, or preparing revision memos tied to reporting guidelines.
Skip if: Quick claim-fact-checking without a full review deliverable—use scientific-critical-thinking; quantitative scholar scoring—use scholar-evaluation.
When should I use this skill?
Conducting peer review of scientific manuscripts, evaluating grant proposals, or assessing methodology, statistics, reproducibility, and reporting standards.
What do I get? / Deliverables
You deliver a constructive, criteria-driven peer review or grant assessment ready for journals, committees, or author revision cycles.
- Structured peer review document with major and minor concerns
- Grant evaluation memo with methodology and feasibility sections
- Guideline compliance notes for CONSORT, STROBE, or PRISMA where applicable
Recommended Skills
Journey fit
Formal peer review is a quality gate before publication or funding submission, which maps to Ship’s review subphase rather than initial ideation. Review subphase fits checklist-based evaluation of manuscripts and proposals, distinct from building the draft in docs or pm.
How it compares
Structured review-writing skill—not a literature-discovery or citation-management integration.
Common Questions / FAQ
Who is Peer Review for?
Academic and R&D-focused solo builders who serve as reviewers or panel readers and need disciplined, guideline-aware critique documents.
When should I use Peer Review?
During Ship review when drafting journal referee reports, grant critiques, or pre-submission self-reviews that must cover methods, stats, reproducibility, and ethics.
Is Peer Review safe to install?
Review the Security Audits panel on this Prism page; the skill allows Read, Write, Edit, and Bash—scope those tools to non-sensitive manuscript workflows.
SKILL.md
READMESKILL.md - Peer Review
# Scientific Critical Evaluation and Peer Review ## Overview Peer review is a systematic process for evaluating scientific manuscripts. Assess methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards. Apply this skill for manuscript and grant review across disciplines with constructive, rigorous evaluation. ## When to Use This Skill This skill should be used when: - Conducting peer review of scientific manuscripts for journals - Evaluating grant proposals and research applications - Assessing methodology and experimental design rigor - Reviewing statistical analyses and reporting standards - Evaluating reproducibility and data availability - Checking compliance with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA) - Providing constructive feedback on scientific writing ## Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics **When creating documents with this skill, always consider adding scientific diagrams and schematics to enhance visual communication.** If your document does not already contain schematics or diagrams: - Use the **scientific-schematics** skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams - Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language - Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic **For new documents:** Scientific schematics should be generated by default to visually represent key concepts, workflows, architectures, or relationships described in the text. **How to generate schematics:** ```bash python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png ``` The AI will automatically: - Create publication-quality images with proper formatting - Review and refine through multiple iterations - Ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly, high contrast) - Save outputs in the figures/ directory **When to add schematics:** - Peer review workflow diagrams - Evaluation criteria decision trees - Review process flowcharts - Methodology assessment frameworks - Quality assessment visualizations - Reporting guidelines compliance diagrams - Any complex concept that benefits from visualization For detailed guidance on creating schematics, refer to the scientific-schematics skill documentation. --- ## Peer Review Workflow Conduct peer review systematically through the following stages, adapting depth and focus based on the manuscript type and discipline. ### Stage 1: Initial Assessment Begin with a high-level evaluation to determine the manuscript's scope, novelty, and overall quality. **Key Questions:** - What is the central research question or hypothesis? - What are the main findings and conclusions? - Is the work scientifically sound and significant? - Is the work appropriate for the intended venue? - Are there any immediate major flaws that would preclude publication? **Output:** Brief summary (2-3 sentences) capturing the manuscript's essence and initial impression. ### Stage 2: Detailed Section-by-Section Review Conduct a thorough evaluation of each manuscript section, documenting specific concerns and strengths. #### Abstract and Title - **Accuracy:** Does the abstract accurately reflect the study's content and conclusions? - **Clarity:** Is the title specific, accurate, and informative? - **Completeness:** Are key findings and methods summarized appropriately? - **Accessibility:** Is the abstract comprehensible to a broad scientific audienc