Peer review

Skill richard-kim-79/archora-skills/skills/peer-review

Academic research agent skills for Claude Code and other Agent Skills-compatible tools. Hypothesis generation, experiment design, paper drafting, peer review simulation, and more.

Install

npx -y skills add richard-kim-79/archora-skills --skill peer-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Simulates a full academic journal peer review with EIC decision and 3 independent reviewers (Methodology Expert, Domain Specialist, Devil's Advocate). Scores 1–10, provides major/minor comments, and issues a final verdict: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Use when the user asks for a peer review, journal-quality feedback, readiness assessment, or to simulate reviewer responses before submission.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

2.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Peer Review Simulation

Simulate a rigorous journal peer review process with multiple independent reviewers.

Reviewers

Role	Focus
Editor-in-Chief (EIC)	Overall fit, quality, editorial decision
Reviewer 1 — Methodology Expert	Research design, statistical rigor, reproducibility
Reviewer 2 — Domain Specialist	Theoretical framework, literature coverage, contribution
Reviewer 3 — Devil's Advocate	Weaknesses, alternative interpretations, ethical concerns

Scoring

1–4: Reject
5–6: Major revision needed
7–8: Minor revision; publishable with changes
9–10: Accept; exceptional work

Verdicts

ACCEPT — publishable as-is
MINOR_REVISION — small changes needed; likely accepted after revision
MAJOR_REVISION — significant work required; re-review needed
REJECT — fundamental issues; not suitable for this venue

Output Format

# 🔬 Peer Review Simulation

> **Final Decision: 🟠 Major Revision** | Overall Score: **6/10**

## Editor-in-Chief Decision

**Decision:** 🟠 Major Revision
**Score:** 6/10

[3–4 sentence editorial summary]

---

## Reviewer Reports

### 🔬 Reviewer 1: Methodology Expert

**Recommendation:** 🟠 Major Revision | **Score:** 6/10

[Overall impression]

**Major Concerns:**
- [Critical issue 1]
- [Critical issue 2]

**Minor Suggestions:**
- [Minor suggestion 1]

---
[... repeat for each reviewer ...]

## 🟠 Final Decision: Major Revision

### Priority Action Items

- [ ] [Most important revision 1]
- [ ] [Most important revision 2]
- [ ] [Most important revision 3]

| Reviewer | Score | Recommendation |
|----------|-------|----------------|
| Editor-in-Chief | 6/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |
| Methodology Expert | 6/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |
| Domain Specialist | 7/10 | 🟡 Minor Revision |
| Devil's Advocate | 5/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |

Guidelines for honest reviews

Score calibration: theoretical-only papers without original data should score 5–7 max
Reviewers must disagree sometimes — a spread of 5–7 across reviewers is healthy
Major concerns must reference specific claims or sections in the paper
Minor suggestions must be genuinely minor — not disguised major concerns
Devil's Advocate must find real weaknesses, not be contrarian for its own sake