Results for “peer-review”

Simulates a NeurIPS/SC/ICSE-style peer review with five reviewer personas (HPC, ML, Stats, Reproducibility, Devil's Advocate) that verify every claim against actual result data before submission.

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

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

Generates a curated supplementary reading list from any course syllabus using Consensus academic search, producing a professionally formatted .docx with recent peer-reviewed papers per course section.

Orchestrates the full academic research pipeline from exploration to final manuscript, coordinating research, writing, integrity verification, peer review, revision, and finalization stages with user confirmation checkpoints.

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

Simulates a full multi-reviewer journal review PANEL — 5 personas (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + a Devil's Advocate) debate a manuscript and produce a consensus Editorial Decision (accept/minor/major/reject) plus a prioritized Revision Roadmap. Modes: full, re-review (verify revisions addressed prior comments), quick, methodology-focus, Socratic guided. Use for: simulate peer review, mock review panel, editorial review before submission, multiple reviewer perspectives, re-review of a revised manuscript, or 'critique my paper hard'. For a single-reviewer referee report use alterlab-peer-review; for rubric/grade scoring use alterlab-scholar-eval; to write/revise the paper use alterlab-paper-writer. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.

Reviews an academic paper using the NeurIPS review form with three reviewer personas, ensemble scoring, and reflection refinement. Extracts text from PDF, runs structured review, and outputs actionable feedback.

Parses external reviews, enforces coverage and grounding, and drafts a text-only rebuttal under venue limits, managing follow-up rounds.

Provides reviewer-style audit and deep review for academic papers in LaTeX, Typst, and PDF formats, producing structured issue bundles, pass/fail gates, and revision roadmaps.

Code review skill — auto-scopes from git changes, reads DOJO.md for project conventions, and produces structured findings with priority levels. Supports quick single-pass review and deep 3-agent parallel audit.

Install a local rebuttal workspace for academic papers with structured intake, reviewer analysis, and strategy planning to produce venue-compliant author responses.

通用跨模型审查：Review LLM 对任意研究制品进行独立评审，输出结构化评分、wiki 实体映射与改进建议

Interrogates research plans before evals or published claims, forcing explicit null hypotheses, confound checks, and data verification across four review waves.

帮助用户撰写高质量的文献综述类论文。提供从选题、文献检索、评估筛选、结构规划到最终写作的全流程指导。适用于需要撰写独立文献综述论文或学术论文中文献综述部分的用户。

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.

PRISMA Scoping Review Pipeline

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.

Conduct systematic literature reviews by searching multiple academic databases, synthesizing findings, and generating professionally formatted documents with verified citations.

Orients researchers to an unfamiliar academic field by searching Consensus, building a strategic search plan with PICO or other frameworks, and synthesizing findings into a formatted Word document.

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

Conduct systematic access reviews and certifications to ensure users have appropriate access rights aligned with their roles, covering review campaign design, reviewer selection, risk-based prioritization, and remediation tracking for compliance with SOX, HIPAA, and PCI DSS.

VS-Enhanced Literature Review Strategist - Comprehensive support for multiple review methodologies Full VS 5-Phase process: Prevents Mode Collapse and presents creative search strategies Supports: Systematic Review (PRISMA 2020), Scoping Review (JBI/PRISMA-ScR), Meta-Synthesis, Realist Synthesis, Narrative Review, Rapid Review Use when: conducting any type of literature review, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, finding prior research Triggers: literature review, PRISMA, systematic review, scoping review, meta-synthesis, realist synthesis, narrative review, rapid review

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

Conduct a structured literature review on a given topic by defining a search strategy, applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracting key findings, and synthesizing results into a coherent academic review. Use when the user requests literature review or provides relevant inputs for this workflow.

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

NIH grant research skill for clinical researchers. Grill-me intake (research idea + career stage + preliminary data + environment + submission posture + known institute targets) locks down the funding strategy before any search runs. Runs a 5-facet Consensus positioning analysis (with draft Significance/Innovation language), maps the research to the right NIH institutes and study sections via RePORTER, finds NOSIs and funded overlap, and produces an editable Word document (.docx) with budget/scope-aware mechanism recommendations, submission timelines, and a mandatory program officer recommendation. Use when the user asks about research funding or makes any grant-related request (e.g., 'grants for [topic]', 'find grants for my research idea', 'what grants match my research', 'help me find NIH funding', 'grant opportunities for my research'). NIH-only scope — non-NIH funders (PCORI, DOD CDMRP, VA, foundations) are out of scope and flagged at intake.

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