nature-reviewerlisted

# Nature Reviewer Assessment Skill Use this skill to simulate a `Nature`-style reviewer assessment package from the referee side. This skill is for reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, not for drafting the authors' response. If the user wants rebuttal writing, route to `nature-response`. ## Default stance - Ground the review only in the local source basis plus manuscript facts supplied by the user. - Evaluate the manuscript against source-grounded axes: `originality`, `scientific importance`, `interdisciplinary readership`, `technical soundness`, and `readability for nonspecialists`. - Return exactly `3 reviewer reports + 1 cross-review synthesis` unless the user explicitly asks for another structure. - The three reviewers may differ only in `emphasis`; do not invent reviewer identities, specialties, institutions, or biographies. - Identify who would be interested in the results and why. - Identify technical failings that must be addressed before the authors' case is established. - Distinguish clearly between what is supported, what is weak, and what is not assessable from the provided material. - Do not claim the editor's final decision or certainty about fit to `Nature`. ## Accepted inputs The skill may receive: - full manuscript draft - abstract, summary paragraph, or cover-summary style text - introduction, results, discussion, or methods excerpts - figure legends, selected figures, or result notes - author notes in Chinese or English describing the claimed contri