peer-review-simulator

Solid

Skill for simulating peer review feedback on manuscripts

AI & Automation 1,160 stars 71 forks Updated today MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 94/100

Stars 20%
100
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
43
Issue Health 10%
50
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Peer Review Simulator Skill ## Purpose Simulate peer review feedback on manuscripts to identify potential issues and improve quality before submission. ## Capabilities - Analyze manuscript quality - Identify methodological issues - Check statistical validity - Assess presentation clarity - Generate reviewer comments - Prioritize improvements ## Usage Guidelines 1. Load manuscript 2. Analyze structure 3. Review methodology 4. Check statistics 5. Generate feedback 6. Prioritize issues ## Process Integration Works within scientific discovery workflows for: - Pre-submission review - Quality improvement - Manuscript refinement - Author preparation ## Configuration - Review criteria - Strictness levels - Focus areas - Output formats ## Output Artifacts - Review reports - Comment summaries - Issue prioritization - Improvement suggestions

Details

Author
a5c-ai
Repository
a5c-ai/babysitter
Created
4 months ago
Last Updated
today
Language
JavaScript
License
MIT

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

AI & Automation Solid

peer-review

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.

2,210 Updated 1 weeks ago
foryourhealth111-pixel
AI & Automation Listed

paper-review

Use this skill when the user wants to simulate a review of their paper, check it before submission, or understand how reviewers might perceive it. Triggers include: "review my paper", "simulate review", "check before submit", "reviewer perspective", "will this get accepted". Also use before submission to catch weaknesses that reviewers would find.

2 Updated 4 days ago
charlotte-12s
Code & Development Featured

peer-review

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.

26,817 Updated today
K-Dense-AI
Code & Development Solid

peer-review

Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

27,705 Updated today
davila7
Code & Development Listed

peer-review

Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

335 Updated today
aiskillstore