peer-review

Guide reviewers through staged manuscript and grant evaluation checklists.

Updated Jun 7, 2026

Search Tags:#checklist #guidelines #structured-feedback #peer-review #manuscript-evaluation #consort-strobe

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/schneidermu/agent-dotfiles --skill peer-review-schneidermu

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: peer-review
Source: https://github.com/schneidermu/agent-dotfiles/tree/main/codex-skills/peer-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/schneidermu/agent-dotfiles --skill peer-review-schneidermu

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

Structured, rigorous manuscript and grant review guided by checklist-based evaluation to ensure objective, consistent feedback and adherence to standards.

Core Features & Use Cases

Checklist-based evaluation across abstracts, methods, results, and discussion to standardize critique.
Stage-based workflow guiding Initial Assessment, Detailed Review, and Reporting with references for best practices.
Guidance on applying reporting standards (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA) and generating structured, actionable feedback.
Access to reference materials (common issues, reporting standards) to support thorough evaluation.

Quick Start

Initiate a guided peer-review session by providing your manuscript and following the Stage-based workflow prompts.

Frequently Asked Questions about peer-review

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

FAQPage Schema

How do I conduct a structured peer review for a scientific manuscript?▼

A structured peer review uses a stage-based workflow covering initial assessment, detailed methodology checks, and final reporting to generate consistent, objective feedback on scientific manuscripts.

What reporting standards should I use for peer reviewing medical research papers?▼

For peer reviewing medical research papers, apply reporting standards such as CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA to evaluate abstract, methods, results, and discussion sections against established guidelines.

How can I standardize manuscript evaluation feedback across different disciplines?▼

You can standardize manuscript evaluation by applying checklist-based critiques across document types and disciplines, ensuring objective feedback on methodology, statistics, and ethical considerations regardless of field.

What is the best way to evaluate methodology and statistics in a peer review?▼

The best way to evaluate methodology and statistics is following a detailed review stage that assesses reproducibility, transparency, and reporting standards using structured checklist references.

Can I use a checklist-based approach for reviewing grant proposals as well as manuscripts?▼

Yes, checklist-based evaluation supports reviewing both grant proposals and scientific manuscripts, applying standardized critique across abstracts, methods, results, and discussions to ensure objective assessment.

Why does my peer review feedback lack consistency and rigor?▼

Peer review feedback lacks consistency when not guided by structured checklists and reporting standards, making it difficult to objectively evaluate methodology, statistics, and ethical considerations across manuscripts.