Results for “peer-review”

Use when serving as a peer reviewer and deciding whether and how AI may assist, when a manuscript under review must never be pasted into an external tool, or when a confidentiality-preserving review and disclosure are needed.

Publication Specialist - Writing, Review, Pre-registration & Quality Assurance Light VS applied: Avoids template-based writing + audience-specific message design Absorbed G3 (Peer Review Strategist), G4 (Pre-registration Composer), F1-F3 (Quality functions) capabilities Use when: writing abstracts, creating summaries, peer review response, pre-registration, reporting checklists, reproducibility Triggers: abstract, plain language, press release, summary, communication, peer review, revision, pre-registration, OSF, PRISMA, CONSORT, reproducibility

The art of reviewing code that improves both the codebase and the developer - sharing knowledge, maintaining standards, and building cultureUse when "code review, PR review, pull request, merge request, review comments, LGTM, review feedback, approve PR, request changes, review checklist, code quality, review standards, code-review, pull-request, PR, quality, standards, feedback, collaboration, mentoring" mentioned.

Give a decisive, project-grounded point of view in the subject's own shape: a graded verdict on an external-adoption question, a holistic take on a document, or a position on a user-supplied approach set. Use for a solo POV, a mid-session second opinion, a named-peer cross-check, any request to consult other models or reconcile their opinions, an `oracle` panel, or a correction-cost-gated proactive cross-check offer. Not for findings review (use ce-doc-review), neutral explainers, or generating options (use ce-ideate or ce-brainstorm).

Reviews parsers, deserialization, uploads, archives, YAML/JSON/XML/pickle, paths, templates, SSRF, and unsafe loaders.

The single highest-leverage convention in code review is prefixing every comment

Run an AI-assisted PR code review using multi-layer lenses with confidence scoring.

Turn interactive commit reviews back on for the current herdr workspace.

Resolves legacy references to the pr-review-expert capability by routing to the current runtime agent or skill.

Classifies code review findings to choose the smallest correct response, preventing one-patch-per-comment churn.

Eng manager-mode plan review. (gstack)

Reviews lockfiles, installers, provenance, CI permissions, dependency confusion, artifacts, registries, and publishing.

Review an exact PR head in isolation using trusted-base instructions and execution evidence

Reviewer Role Session

Use this skill for code review and PR review tasks. Covers review methodology, what to flag, what to skip, and output structure.

Checks a GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce (p4) pull request (or merge request, or shelved changelist) for unresolved review comments, failing status checks, and incomplete PR descriptions. Waits for pending checks to complete, categorizes issues as actionable or informational, and optionally fixes and resolves them. Use when the user wants to check a PR/MR/CL, address review feedback, or prepare a change for submission.

Create, refresh, and rewrite PR titles and descriptions following Sentry conventions, focusing on reviewer-facing content that describes the full branch diff.

Comprehensive code review using specialized agents — orchestrates code, comments, tests, errors, types, and simplify agents sequentially.

Runs independent AI CLI reviewers over phase plans and merges their feedback into a REVIEWS.md file.

Use to choose the PNAS submission track — Direct Submission (standard, editor-assigned, peer reviewed) vs Contributed Submission (an NAS member communicates their own paper). Covers eligibility, the editor/member role, the discontinued and legacy tracks, and how to pick. Unique to PNAS.

Remove AI writing patterns from prose. Use this skill when writing, drafting, editing, reviewing, or revising any text to eliminate predictable AI tells, slop, and formulaic patterns. Trigger this skill whenever the user asks to "deslop", "de-AI", "make it sound human," "remove AI patterns," "remove AI tropes," "clean up AI writing," fix "slop," "deslop" text, or review prose for authenticity. Also use when the user asks you to write or draft anything and wants it to sound natural rather than AI-generated. Common use cases include scientific writing (manuscripts, abstracts, cover letters, grant narratives, discussion sections, peer review responses), blog posts, newsletters, memos, reports, and any other substantial prose.