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.

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 ./bundled/skills/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.

The body is a well-structured, actionable peer-review guide with a clear staged workflow and real reference files. Its main weakness is conciseness: a marketing-style schematics section and padded example log output consume tokens without adding review guidance.

Suggestions

Remove or drastically condense the 'Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics' promotional section and the fabricated [HH:MM:SS] timestamp log examples, which pad the skill without aiding peer review.

Move the large presentations subsection (criteria checklists + report format) into a separate references file (e.g. references/presentations.md) and link to it from the main body to improve progressive disclosure and token efficiency.

Tighten the section-by-section question lists into denser checklists, dropping self-evident items Claude already knows about peer review.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The bulk is efficient checklist content, but the promotional 'Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics' section and the fabricated timestamp log block in the presentations example are unnecessary padding that could be trimmed, matching 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation'.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, specific guidance—named reporting standards (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE, MIAME), verifiable items (sample sizes, power calculations, randomization), a numbered report structure, and executable commands for presentation conversion—with only minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced 7-stage workflow is paired with a Final Checklist validation checkpoint and a mandatory image-based presentation sub-workflow; no destructive/batch cap applies, but the main review loop lacks explicit validate→fix→retry feedback cycles, keeping it just below anchor 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Real one-level-deep references (reporting_standards.md, common_issues.md) are clearly signaled in the Resources section and used appropriately, though the very large inline presentations subsection could plausibly be split into its own reference file.	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.

The description is strong: it states concrete capabilities, gives explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, and proactively disambiguates from neighboring skills. The only mild weakness is trigger-term synonym coverage and slightly abstract action phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions ('methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback', 'review writing, manuscript revision') but the phrasing stays slightly abstract/checklist-oriented, leaving minor coverage gaps versus the fully concrete anchor 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation...') and when ('Use when writing formal peer reviews...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor 5.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural keyword coverage ('peer reviews', 'manuscript', 'grant review', 'CONSORT/STROBE', 'constructive feedback', 'manuscript revision') that users would plausibly say, though a few common synonyms are missing versus the comprehensive anchor 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Carves a clear niche and actively disambiguates from siblings ('For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation'), giving minimal conflict risk per anchor 5.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

81%

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 — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (569 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	13 / 16 Passed

Repository: foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills
Path: bundled/skills/peer-review/SKILL.md
Commit: d5ae560

Reviewed: 1 day 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.