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

77%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/peer-review/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A well-structured, actionable instruction skill with a clear workflow and properly signaled one-level-deep references. Its main weakness is token efficiency: a verbatim inline template duplicating the asset file plus some restated/known-concept content.

Suggestions

Remove the verbatim inline report template from 'Example Usage' and point to assets/peer_review_template.md instead (or keep only a short excerpt) to eliminate the duplication and save tokens.

Trim 'Key Parameters/Criteria' definitions of novelty/significance/rigor, which explain concepts Claude already knows; keep only any non-obvious discipline-specific thresholds.

Add an explicit validation step to the workflow (e.g., 'Before delivering, confirm every major issue has a suggested fix and the recommendation aligns with issue severity') leveraging the output checklist in references/guide.md.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient, but the full ~50-line report template is inlined verbatim despite existing as assets/peer_review_template.md, and 'Key Features' plus 'Key Parameters/Criteria' restate workflow steps and explain concepts (novelty, significance, rigor) Claude already knows, so it could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides a copy-paste-ready report template and concrete evaluation criteria (research design, data quality, statistical methods, reproducibility, major/minor issue triage with why-it-matters/suggested-fix/expected-impact fields), with only minor gaps in a few high-level steps like 'form an overall impression'.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 'Review Workflow (Algorithm)' is a clear five-step sequence (read -> overall evaluation -> methods/results verification -> issue organization -> recommendation), and a process checklist exists in references/guide.md, but the inline workflow lacks an explicit 'verify review completeness before delivering' checkpoint.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Structure is good with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references to two real files (assets/peer_review_template.md and references/guide.md), but the full template is inlined in the body duplicating the asset file, a minor organization gap.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A strong description that clearly communicates both capability and trigger conditions in third person, with a distinct academic-review niche. The only weakness is slightly abstract action verbs and a few missing natural synonyms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions ('conduct professional peer reviews', 'structured evaluations', 'improvement suggestions', 'pre-submission assessment', 'internal review', 'academic quality control'), but they stay somewhat higher-level than the score-5 anchor's granular operations, so a minor coverage gap remains.	4 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly states what the skill does ('Conduct professional peer reviews... providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions') and when to use it ('use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic quality control'), matching the score-5 anchor's explicit what-and-when pattern.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural phrases users would say are present ('peer reviews', 'papers or theses', 'pre-submission assessment', 'internal review', 'academic quality control'), but common synonyms like 'manuscript', 'draft review', or 'feedback' are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a clear academic peer-review niche with distinct triggers ('papers or theses', 'pre-submission assessment', 'academic quality control') that are unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the clear-niche/minimal-conflict anchor.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 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
Path: scientific-skills/Academic Writing/peer-review/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 9 hours 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.