review_skill

Overview

This skill provides PhD-level peer review of academic manuscripts and research proposals, focused on contribution, methodology, and rigor. I deliver a structured critique that balances high-level impact assessment with line-level methodological checks. Reviews are tailored to either constructive (editor-style) or adversarial (rigorous reviewer-style) tones, and can be aligned to your target journal or funder.

How this skill works

You submit the draft text or a link/file path and optionally select the review tone and target venue. I perform an initial assessment of significance, a deep methodological critique, a logic and inference check, and produce actionable, prioritized recommendations. The output includes strengths, weaknesses, suggested edits, and concrete next steps to improve the manuscript or proposal.

When to use it

• Preparing a manuscript for journal submission or revision
• Drafting or polishing a grant proposal before submission
• Getting rigorous methodological feedback before experiments or analysis
• Rehearsing responses to reviewer critiques during revision
• Assessing novelty and fit for a target journal or funding call

Best practices

• Provide the full draft or relevant sections and any reviewer comments you’ve received
• State your target journal or funder and desired review tone (constructive or adversarial)
• Include key data, figures, or supplementary methods for a complete methodological check
• Highlight specific concerns you want prioritized (e.g., stats, literature gap, framing)
• Allow an iteration: incorporate the review and request a follow-up critique

Example use cases

• Improve experimental design and statistical analysis before data collection
• Strengthen argumentation and theoretical framing for a conceptual paper
• Identify fatal methodological flaws in a proposal to revise before submission
• Edit clarity and structure for rapid journal resubmission after rejection
• Generate a point-by-point response strategy to address reviewer critiques