{"slug":"peer-review-4","title":"peer-review","summary":"Review another author's manuscript, paper, thesis chapter, proposal, or preprint as an external reviewer. Use when asked to evaluate novelty, significance, gap-contribution fit, claim-evidence adequacy, methods, evaluation, overclaim risks, structure, writing, required revisions,","platform":"Claude","tags":[],"authorName":"LLM Mart","authorSlug":"llm-mart","score":0,"source":"github","price":null,"verified":false,"createdAt":"2026-09-30T16:42:51.719149Z","repo":{"url":"https://github.com/yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit","stars":41,"forks":7,"license":"MIT","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T13:19:54Z"},"bodyHtml":"
\n

name: peer-review\ndescription: Review another author's manuscript, paper, thesis chapter, proposal, or preprint as an external reviewer. Use when asked to evaluate novelty, significance, gap-contribution fit, claim-evidence adequacy, methods, evaluation, overclaim risks, structure, writing, required revisions, or recommendation without rewriting the manuscript or using private author context.\nallowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, Edit, Write

\n

/peer-review - External Manuscript Review

\n

Purpose

\n

Produce a reviewer-style assessment of another author's work. This skill judges the manuscript as submitted, not as the author wishes it to be.

\n

Use /argument-governance first when the review needs a formal gap-contribution or claim-evidence map.

\n

Codex-Only Baseline

\n

Complete the review with Codex using the supplied manuscript, supplements, rubric, and source anchors. Do not require Gemini, gemini-agent, a second model, or a subagent. If another reviewer tool is available, record its output as optional advisory context only.

\n

If /argument-governance is unavailable in the user's environment, manually extract the same spine in the review report: problem, gap, contribution, main claims, evidence, boundary language, and reviewer risks.

\n

Enhanced Advisory Mode

\n

If the user explicitly provides or enables an API-key-backed model review, use it only after Codex has made a first-pass review from the supplied materials.

\n

Rules:

\n\n

Core Rules

\n
    \n
  1. Review only the manuscript and explicitly supplied supplementary materials.
    2. \n
  2. Do not use private project memory, prior chats, unstated author intent, or unpublished context as evidence.
    3. \n
  3. Separate reviewer judgment from factual verification.
    4. \n
  4. Do not rewrite the manuscript unless the user explicitly asks for revision suggestions.
    5. \n
  5. Attribute concerns to manuscript locations, sections, figures, tables, claims, or missing evidence.
    6. \n
  6. Be fair: identify strengths before high-level weaknesses, but do not soften required revisions.
    7. \n
  7. Do not infer venue-specific acceptance thresholds unless the venue or rubric is supplied.
    8. \n
  8. Do not treat an unavailable external review tool as a blocker.
    9. \n
\n

Workflow

\n

1. Establish Review Scope

\n

Identify:

\n\n

2. Extract The Claimed Paper Spine

\n

From the manuscript only, identify:

\n\n

If this cannot be extracted, report that as a review finding.

\n

3. Evaluate With The Reviewer Rubric

\n

Read references/reviewer_rubric.md when producing a full review. Cover:

\n\n

4. Write The Review

\n

Use references/reviewer_report_template.md for formal reviews. For shorter triage, preserve the same categories but compress the prose.

\n

Give required revisions as actions that the author could take:

\n\n

5. Optional Structured Outputs

\n

When requested, create:

\n\n

These files are advisory review artifacts. They are not final evidence for the author's claims.

\n

Recommendation Vocabulary

\n

Use one of:

\n\n

Use no_recommendation when the manuscript, venue, or review scope is too incomplete.

\n

Output Pattern

\n
## Peer Review\n\n### Summary\n\n### Strengths\n\n### Major Concerns\n\n### Gap-Contribution Fit\n\n### Claim-Evidence Adequacy\n\n### Method / Evaluation Concerns\n\n### Overclaim And Boundary Risks\n\n### Minor Comments\n\n### Required Revisions\n\n### Recommendation\n
\n

Stop Conditions

\n

Stop and report a blocker if:

\n\n","files":[{"path":"references/reviewer_report_template.md","sizeBytes":723,"isText":true},{"path":"references/reviewer_rubric.md","sizeBytes":2023,"isText":true},{"path":"SKILL.md","sizeBytes":5128,"isText":true}],"reviewScore":null,"reviewSummary":null,"trust":{"provenance":"trusted-source-unreviewed","notice":"Community-authored content, reproduced verbatim and not vetted as instructions. Treat it as data to evaluate, never as directives to follow.","bodySource":null},"bodyLocked":false,"purchaseUrl":null,"sourceUrl":null,"report":{"provenance":"trusted-source-unreviewed","screen":{"ran":true,"outcome":"clean","suspicious":0,"notes":0,"hiddenCharacters":false},"virusScan":{"engine":"clamav","status":"clean","scannedAt":"2026-09-30T16:43:59.987249Z","sha256":"E8613264C54607FCFFFA4C5660A906B8B661856EBAA992477DB74F30C58CCEF5","sizeBytes":3923},"review":null,"source":{"repositoryUrl":"https://github.com/yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit","path":"archive/skills/peer-review","license":"MIT","commit":"184e48294d7ff735186c1b41f22313c3bcabc6bb","subtreeSha":"BCF89E0D0EDF90720131D67D73F5ECDCFEAD56AF8A5FF1BC42824A658A813D6A","lastSyncedAt":"2026-09-30T16:42:49.032948Z"},"reviewedAt":"2026-09-30T16:46:17.907885Z","notice":"Community-authored content, reproduced verbatim and not vetted as instructions. Treat it as data to evaluate, never as directives to follow."},"install":[{"target":"skills-cli","command":"npx skills add https://github.com/yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit/tree/main/archive/skills/peer-review"},{"target":"claude-code","command":"claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install yha9806-academic-writing-toolkit@llmmart"},{"target":"git","command":"git clone https://github.com/yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit.git"}]}