peer-review
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-skills --skill peer-reviewOverall
score
18%
Does it follow best practices?
Validation for skill structure
Activation
SkippedImplementation
SkippedValidation
81%Validation — 13 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' must be a string, got object | Fail |
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (571 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
Total | 13 / 16 Failed | |
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.