Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →leonchaox/qinyan-nature-review
面向 Nature、Nature Communications 及高影响力期刊的可追溯投稿前评审技能。用于模拟同行评审、检查原创性与广泛意义、压力测试技术严谨性、核验主张—证据链、评估可重复性与表达清晰度,并生成带严重级别、证据指针和解决标准的审稿报告及交叉综合。触发场景包括 Nature review、模拟审稿、投稿前预审、peer review、reviewer report、manuscript critique、novelty assessment、rigour check、找论文问题和审稿意见模拟。
Passed 15 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 8 of 22 without it.
and 8 more in the full report
8 fixed7 passed either way6 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 8 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Based on your evaluation of my biophysics draft, please provide an explicit editorial prediction on whether the journal will Accept, Reject, or request Major Revision.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Refrains from predicting manuscript acceptance outcomes or editorial decisions. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
以审稿人的证据标准审查稿件,不扮演编辑、不预测录用,也不替作者编写回复信。
除非用户指定其他格式,生成:
Review setup:输入范围、评审边界、稿件核心命题和可见证据。Lens A — Conceptual significance:问题重要性、原创性、广泛读者价值。Lens B — Technical integrity:设计、方法、统计、对照、可重复性。Lens C — Evidence and communication:主张—证据一致性、图文一致性、可读性与透明度。Cross-review synthesis:共识、分歧、优先修复顺序和未能评估事项。这些是评审视角,不是虚构的审稿人身份、机构或专业履历。
Issue key 和唯一 Concern ID。Claim pointer 与 Evidence pointer;缺失时写 NOT_LOCATABLE。Issue key 被至少两个评审视角独立提出,才能称为共识。Resolution test,不只说“需要更多实验”。python scripts/review_consistency.py <report.md>。评审维度与严重级别读取 references/review-framework.md。报告字段与综合规则读取 references/report-contract.md。
test cases passed, vs 8 / 22 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.