peer-review

Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic quality control.

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a well-organized, actionable overview with a clear sequenced workflow and properly structured one-level-deep references to real bundle files. Its main weakness is token efficiency: the full report template is duplicated inline despite an identical asset file, and some criteria restate concepts Claude already knows.

Suggestions

Remove the inline copy of the full report template from the 'Example Usage' section and instead point readers to assets/peer_review_template.md, keeping only a short excerpt to illustrate the format.

Trim the 'Key Parameters / Criteria' definitions (novelty, significance, rigor, etc.) to the non-obvious review-specific points, since Claude already understands these general academic concepts.

Consider collapsing 'Key Features' into the workflow/criteria sections to avoid restating the same capabilities twice in the same file.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient, but it inlines the full ~50-line report template as an example while the identical template also lives in assets/peer_review_template.md, and the 'Key Parameters / Criteria' section restates familiar concepts (novelty, significance, rigor); these could be tightened.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: a complete fill-in report template plus an explicit five-step review algorithm and a clear issue-triage scheme, which for an instruction-only skill satisfies the actionable bar without requiring code.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The review workflow is clearly sequenced (read → overall evaluation → methods/results verification → issue organization → recommendation); the task is non-destructive so the absence of validate-fix-retry loops does not cap the score per the rubric notes.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is an organized overview pointing one level deep to real, clearly signaled bundle files (assets/peer_review_template.md and references/guide.md, both verified to exist), matching the score-3 anchor for well-signaled shallow references.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is concise, uses third-person voice for the capability, names concrete actions, and includes an explicit 'use when' trigger covering several natural request phrasings. It clearly distinguishes the skill's academic peer-review niche from generic writing or analysis skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Conduct professional peer reviews', 'providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions' — comparable to the score-3 anchor naming several specific actions rather than a vague domain label.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers what ('Conduct professional peer reviews... providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions') and when ('use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic quality control'), matching the score-3 anchor with an explicit 'use when' trigger.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural user phrasing — 'peer reviews', 'papers or theses', 'pre-submission assessment', 'internal review', 'academic quality control' — terms a user would naturally say when requesting this skill.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The academic peer-review niche with distinct triggers (pre-submission, thesis evaluation, internal review) is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the score-3 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Commit: 7cc5680

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.