self-review

Name: self-review
Availability: InStock
Author: Aperivue

Generate anticipated reviewer comments with severity framing for manuscript submissions.

243|60|Updated Apr 6, 2026

Search Tags:#quality-assurance #peer-review #self-review #manuscripts #research-workflow #pre-submission

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/Aperivue/medsci-skills --skill self-review-aperivue

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: self-review
Source: https://github.com/Aperivue/medsci-skills/tree/main/skills/self-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Aperivue/medsci-skills --skill self-review-aperivue

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Pre-submission self-review helps researchers anticipate reviewer comments by applying the same critical lens used in peer review across medical journals. It systematically flags potential issues across 10 evaluation categories so authors can strengthen their manuscript before submission.

Core Features & Use Cases

Applies a structured 10-category reviewer framework to generate a concise set of anticipated major and minor comments with severity framing.
Outputs a JSON block for machine parsing and a markdown self-review report that guides revision workflow (including optional R0 numbering for /revise pipelines).
Facilitates phase-based workflows (intake, analysis, reporting) and provides explicit, actionable fixes that leverage existing data.

Quick Start

Submit your manuscript to generate a self-review report with actionable anticipated comments and a machine-readable JSON block.

Frequently Asked Questions about self-review

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

FAQPage Schema

How do I anticipate peer reviewer comments for a research manuscript before submission?▼

Pre-submission self-review applies a 10-category reviewer lens to your manuscript to identify and articulate anticipated major and minor reviewer comments with severity framing before journal submission.

What is the best way to apply a structured peer review framework to my own research work?▼

Applying a structured peer review framework involves evaluating your manuscript across 10 evaluation categories to flag potential issues, producing a markdown self-review report that guides your revision workflow with explicit fixes.

Can I generate a machine-readable JSON report of anticipated manuscript issues for my research workflow?▼

Yes, manuscript self-review generates a machine-readable JSON block containing anticipated major and minor comments alongside a markdown report, enabling automated parsing within your pre-submission research workflow.

Does pre-submission self-review support numbering for automated manuscript revision pipelines?▼

Yes, pre-submission self-review provides optional R0 numbering for identified issues within the generated markdown report, facilitating direct integration with automated /revise revision workflows.

What limitations exist when using a 10-category reviewer lens for manuscript self-evaluation?▼

The 10-category reviewer lens is specifically calibrated for medical journal peer review standards, meaning its anticipated comments and severity framing may not fully align with non-medical research publication requirements.