peer-review

Name: peer-review
Availability: InStock
Author: aRustyDev

Automates structured peer review of manuscripts and grant proposals across multiple standards.

Updated Jan 28, 2026

Search Tags:#methodology #statistics #reproducibility #peer-review #manuscript-review #reporting-guidelines

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/aRustyDev/git-atomic --skill peer-review-arustydev

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: peer-review
Source: https://github.com/aRustyDev/git-atomic/tree/main/.claude/skills/method-peer-review-dev
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/aRustyDev/git-atomic --skill peer-review-arustydev

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill provides a structured framework to evaluate scientific manuscripts and grant proposals, reducing subjective bias and improving transparency in peer review.

Core Features & Use Cases

Structured evaluation of methodology, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards.
Template-driven feedback: generate comprehensive reviewer reports with section-specific prompts.
Guidance for reporting standards: aligns reviews with CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE, and related guidelines.
Use Case: A manuscript undergoing journal submission can be reviewed across disciplines, producing a rigorous critique and a reproducibility checklist.

Quick Start

Load the manuscript to review and invoke the peer-review skill to produce a structured critique and actionable recommendations.

Frequently Asked Questions about peer-review

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

FAQPage Schema

How do I structure a peer review for a scientific manuscript evaluation?▼

Structured peer review relies on systematically evaluating scientific manuscripts across methodology, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards. Using a template-driven framework reduces subjective bias and generates actionable, section-specific feedback aligned with established guidelines.

Can I use reporting guidelines like CONSORT and PRISMA to evaluate a manuscript?▼

Yes, manuscript evaluation can align with established reporting standards like CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and ARRIVE. Integrating these reporting guidelines into the peer review process ensures transparency, verifies methodology, and produces a rigorous critique with a reproducibility checklist.

What is the best way to assess reproducibility and statistics in a manuscript review?▼

Assessing reproducibility and statistics requires a structured evaluation framework that checks methodology and data transparency. A template-driven peer review approach enforces a comprehensive workflow, identifying statistical flaws and generating actionable recommendations for scientific manuscripts.

Does this peer review framework work for grant proposals across different disciplines?▼

Yes, this structured peer review framework supports the evaluation of both scientific manuscripts and grant proposals across diverse disciplines. It applies a systematic assessment of methodology, ethics, and reporting standards to generate comprehensive reviewer reports.

How do I generate actionable feedback for a manuscript undergoing journal submission?▼

Generating actionable feedback requires a template-driven workflow that evaluates methodology, statistics, and reporting standards. By applying a structured peer review framework, you produce comprehensive reviewer reports with actionable recommendations and a reproducibility checklist for journal submission.