Loading...
Loading...
Found 6 Skills
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.
Critiques ML conference papers with reviewer-style feedback. Use when users want to anticipate reviewer concerns, identify weaknesses, check claim-evidence gaps, or find missing citations.
Simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment from the referee perspective rather than an author rebuttal. Use when the user wants a pre-submission review, reviewer report, peer-review style critique, novelty/significance/technical soundness assessment, reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, 审稿人视角评估, 预审稿意见, or Nature reviewer report. Return 3 reviewer reports plus a cross-review synthesis, grounded only in the local Nature reviewer source basis.
Use when reviewing academic papers, proposals, experiments, claims, related work, novelty, methodology, or manuscripts as a severe but fair peer reviewer before submission.
You must use this when critiquing academic manuscripts, evaluating methodological rigor, or providing structured reviewer feedback.
Novel Chapter Review - Triggered when proofreading, reviewing, or evaluating the quality of novel chapters is required. Keywords: review, proofread, manuscript evaluation, inspection, quality assessment.