peer-review

What it does

It instructs the agent to perform a structured manuscript or grant review using a checklist-based evaluation. It emphasizes assessing methodology, statistical validity, reporting standards (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA), reproducibility, data availability, ethics, and providing constructive feedback. It also covers integrating visual schematics when needed and following a staged workflow from initial assessment through detailed section reviews, methodological rigor, reproducibility, and writing quality. It prescribes how to organize the peer review report with a summary statement, major/minor comments, and optional line-by-line comments or questions for authors.

How it works

The agent should:

1. Conduct an initial assessment to determine scope, novelty, and quality, and generate a brief 2-3 sentence output capturing the manuscript’s essence and initial impression.
2. Perform a Detailed Section-by-Section Review, evaluating Abstract/Title, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References with explicit criteria (accuracy, clarity, completeness, accessibility; context, rationale, novelty, literature, objectives; reproducibility, rigor, detail, ethics, statistics, validation; presentation, figures/tables, statistics, objectivity, completeness, reproducibility; interpretation, limitations, context, speculation, significance, future directions; completeness and accuracy of references).
3. Assess Methodological and Statistical Rigor with attention to statistical assumptions, effect sizes, multiple testing corrections, confidence intervals, power analysis, test selection, handling of missing data, experimental design controls, replication, randomization, blinding, and computational/bioinformatics clarity and reproducibility.
4. Evaluate Reproducibility and Transparency, including data availability, code/materials sharing, and adherence to reporting standards (CONSORT, PRISMA, ARRIVE, MIAME, MINSEQE).
5. Review Figure and Data Presentation for quality and integrity, including labeling, error bars, and accessibility.
6. Check Ethical Considerations covering human/animal subjects, disclosure of conflicts, funding, and integrity concerns.
7. Assess Writing Quality and Clarity for structure, readability, terminology, grammar, and accessibility to non-specialists.
8. Structure feedback using the provided template: Summary Statement, Major Comments, Minor Comments, Optional Line-by-Line Comments, and Questions for Authors.
9. Maintain a constructive and professional tone, prioritize rigor and reproducibility, and avoid unsupported conclusions or speculation.

When to use it

Use when conducting peer reviews of scientific manuscripts or evaluating grant proposals, particularly to assess methodology rigor, experimental design, statistics, reporting standards, reproducibility, and to provide actionable feedback for revision.

What it can touch

Guided by allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash. It entails reviewing text, extracting key criteria, and composing a structured review document. It also optionally references generating schematics via the dedicated schematics workflow and including them in the review if relevant.

Caveats

The skill emphasizes following reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA) and ensuring reproducibility, but it does not guarantee publication outcomes. It relies on the user to supply manuscript content for evaluation and to adapt recommendations to disciplinary norms.