What problem does it solve? Authors lack access to realistic pre-submission peer review, so manuscripts get desk-rejected or hit with avoidable major revisions. This Skill simulates a full journal review process with five independent reviewer personas, surfacing methodological, domain, cross-disciplinary, and adversarial weaknesses before submission. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Multi-Perspective Panel Review: A field analyst configures five reviewers (Editor-in-Chief, methodology, domain, perspective, and Devil's Advocate) who independently review the paper, followed by an editorial synthesis producing a decision letter and prioritized revision roadmap. - Six Operational Modes: full review, re-review (revision verification with a traceability matrix), quick assessment, methodology-focus, Socratic guided review, and calibration mode that measures the reviewer's own FNR/FPR against a user-supplied gold set. - Use Case: Before submitting a manuscript on higher education policy, run a full review to receive five independent reports, an editorial decision, and a revision roadmap that feeds directly into a paper-revision workflow. ## Quick Start Ask the assistant to review your paper by pasting the manuscript text or providing the file, optionally specifying a mode such as quick, methodology-focus, or re-review.
