Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →jaechang-hits/peer-review-methodology
Structured peer review of manuscripts and grants. 7-stage evaluation: initial assessment, section review, statistical rigor, reproducibility, figure integrity, ethics, writing. Covers CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA and report structure. For evidence quality see scientific-critical-thinking; scoring see scholar-evaluation.
Passed 21 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 15 of 23 without it.
and 3 more in the full report
6 fixed15 passed either way2 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 6 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
I am reviewing a 2-page short communication manuscript. Should I execute the full 7-stage review process or an abbreviated workflow, and what should be the targeted report length?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Applies an abbreviated review workflow for short communications | Passed | Passed |
| Recommends a review report length between 0.5 and 1 page | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Peer review is a systematic process for evaluating scientific manuscripts and grant proposals. This knowhow covers the complete review cycle: from initial assessment through detailed section-by-section evaluation, statistical rigor checks, reproducibility assessment, figure integrity verification, ethical considerations, and writing quality — culminating in a structured review report with actionable feedback.
| Review Type | Scope | Typical Length | Key Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original research | Full evaluation | 1–3 pages | Rigor, novelty, reproducibility |
| Review/Meta-analysis | Coverage and bias | 1–2 pages | Completeness, search strategy, systematic approach |
| Methods paper | Validation | 1–2 pages | Comparison to existing methods, reproducibility |
| Short communication | Proportional | 0.5–1 page | Core findings rigor despite brevity |
| Grant proposal | Feasibility + significance | 1–3 pages | Innovation, approach, team, budget justification |
| Standard | Applies to | Key Check |
|---|---|---|
| CONSORT | Randomized controlled trials | Flow diagram, randomization, blinding, ITT analysis |
| STROBE | Observational studies | Study design, setting, participants, variables, bias |
| PRISMA | Systematic reviews / meta-analyses | Search strategy, PICO, risk of bias, forest plots |
| ARRIVE | Animal research | Species, sample size, randomization, 3Rs |
| MIAME | Microarray experiments | Platform, normalization, data deposit (GEO/ArrayExpress) |
| MINSEQE | Sequencing experiments | Read counts, mapping, QC metrics, data deposit (SRA) |
What are you reviewing?
├── Scientific manuscript
test cases passed, vs 15 / 23 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.