home / skills / poemswe / co-researcher / review

review skill

safe

This skill provides PhD-level peer reviews of manuscripts and proposals, assessing significance, methodology, and rigor to guide constructive improvements.

npx playbooks add skill poemswe/co-researcher --skill review

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (1)

SKILL.md

1.1 KB

---
name: review
description: PhD-level academic manuscript and research proposal review.
metadata:
  short-description: Peer Review
---
# /review - Academic Peer Review

I'll provide a rigorous, PhD-level peer review of your research manuscript or proposal. I evaluate based on contribution, methodology, and rigor.

## What I need from you:
Please provide:
1. **The draft**: Paste the text or provide a link/file path.
2. **Review Type**: (Optional) "Adversarial" (Reviewer 2 style) or "Constructive" (Editor style).
3. **Journal/Target**: (Optional) What is your target publication or grant?

## What I'll do:
1. **Initial Assessment**: Significance of contribution and big-picture impact.
2. **Methodological Critique**: Deep dive into the rigor and validity of your approach.
3. **Logic Check**: Ensuring conclusions follow from data.
4. **Actionable Feedback**: Specific suggestions for improvement.

## My Review Dimensions:
- Significance & Originality
- Methodological Rigor
- Argumentation & Coherence
- Presentation & Clarity

Let's begin. Please provide the material you want me to review.
Project: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

This skill provides PhD-level peer review of academic manuscripts and research proposals, focused on contribution, methodology, and rigor. I deliver a structured critique that balances high-level impact assessment with line-level methodological checks. Reviews are tailored to either constructive (editor-style) or adversarial (rigorous reviewer-style) tones, and can be aligned to your target journal or funder.

How this skill works

You submit the draft text or a link/file path and optionally select the review tone and target venue. I perform an initial assessment of significance, a deep methodological critique, a logic and inference check, and produce actionable, prioritized recommendations. The output includes strengths, weaknesses, suggested edits, and concrete next steps to improve the manuscript or proposal.

When to use it

Preparing a manuscript for journal submission or revision
Drafting or polishing a grant proposal before submission
Getting rigorous methodological feedback before experiments or analysis
Rehearsing responses to reviewer critiques during revision
Assessing novelty and fit for a target journal or funding call

Best practices

Provide the full draft or relevant sections and any reviewer comments you’ve received
State your target journal or funder and desired review tone (constructive or adversarial)
Include key data, figures, or supplementary methods for a complete methodological check
Highlight specific concerns you want prioritized (e.g., stats, literature gap, framing)
Allow an iteration: incorporate the review and request a follow-up critique

Example use cases

Improve experimental design and statistical analysis before data collection
Strengthen argumentation and theoretical framing for a conceptual paper
Identify fatal methodological flaws in a proposal to revise before submission
Edit clarity and structure for rapid journal resubmission after rejection
Generate a point-by-point response strategy to address reviewer critiques

FAQ

How long does a review take?

Typical turnaround is 24–72 hours depending on draft length and depth requested; indicate deadlines when you submit.

Can you act as an anonymous critical reviewer?

Yes — choose the adversarial tone for a rigorous, reviewer-2-style critique; I will prioritize identifying weaknesses and potential fatal flaws.