ma-peer-review

Validate meta-analysis manuscripts for rigor, reproducibility, and reporting compliance.

115|45|Updated Feb 5, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/htlin222/meta-pipe --skill ma-peer-review
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: ma-peer-review
Source: https://github.com/htlin222/meta-pipe/tree/main/ma-peer-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/htlin222/meta-pipe --skill ma-peer-review

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes scripts (resource) and references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

Act as Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 for a meta-analysis manuscript, checking rigor, reproducibility, and reporting compliance. Use when validating the final paper before submission.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Dual reviewer outputs: reviewer1.md and reviewer2.md, plus consolidated action-items and grade summaries.
  • Outputs include: 08_reviews/reviewer1.md, 08_reviews/reviewer2.md, 08_reviews/action-items.md, 08_reviews/grade_summary.csv, 08_reviews/grade_summary.md, 08_reviews/analysis_stats.json (from Stage 06), 08_reviews/grade_suggestions.csv, 08_reviews/grade_suggestions.md, 08_reviews/grade_detailed.md, and 03_screening/round-01/quality_rob2.csv, 03_screening/round-01/rob2_assessment.md, 03_screening/round-01/quality_robins_i.csv, 03_screening/round-01/robins_i_assessment.md.
  • Validation checks for protocol adherence, risk of bias, reporting completeness, and reproducibility.

Quick Start

Open the ma-peer-review project within the tooling environment and run the end-to-end review workflow to generate reviewer artifacts for validation.

Frequently Asked Questions about ma-peer-review

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I perform a structured dual-review for meta-analysis reproducibility?

A structured dual-review for meta-analysis reproducibility uses two independent reviewer outputs to validate manuscript rigor, producing consolidated action-items and GRADE summaries to ensure reporting compliance.

What is the best way to check PRISMA and GRADE compliance before manuscript submission?

Checking PRISMA and GRADE compliance involves validating protocol adherence and risk of bias assessments to generate a PRISMA-ready output and a GRADE/SoF starter for submission readiness.

How do I validate RoB 2 and ROBINS-I assessments in a meta-analysis manuscript?

Validating RoB 2 and ROBINS-I assessments requires checking screening artifacts and risk of bias evaluations to confirm manuscript rigor and verify reviewer notes across dual-review outputs.

Can I generate reviewer notes and GRADE summaries from my existing meta-analysis artifacts?

You can generate dual reviewer notes, an action-items log, and GRADE summaries from existing meta-analysis artifacts like protocol drafts and screening artifacts during an end-to-end validation workflow.

What limitations exist when automating peer-review for meta-analysis reporting?

Automating peer-review for meta-analysis reporting cannot fully replace human judgment, requiring complete protocol and screening artifacts to properly validate rigor, reproducibility, and risk of bias assessments.