How do I install the Peer Review skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add gabrielmoreira/peer-review-5 in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Peer Review safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: PASS, Skill Scanner: PASS. Capability flags: docs only. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Peer Review?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Peer Review free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Peer Review?

gabrielmoreira (@gabrielmoreira) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Peer Review by gabrielmoreira — Agent Skill

Name: Peer Review
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: gabrielmoreira

Peer Review

Conduct thorough academic peer reviews with structured feedback using load_pdf and arxiv_to_prompt. Use when the user asks to review a paper, provide manuscript feedback, critique research, or write a referee report.

gabrielmoreira Updated Sep 21, 2026 17 repo stars

File contents

Peer Review Skill

Description

Conduct thorough academic peer reviews with structured, constructive feedback.

Tools Used

load_pdf - Load PDF papers in the workspace viewer (auto-switches to PDF reader)
arxiv_to_prompt - Convert arXiv papers to readable text for analysis
update_notes - Write review reports to the Notes editor

Capabilities

Paper Analysis

Extract and summarize main contributions
Identify methodology and approach
Evaluate experimental design
Assess writing quality

Comparative Analysis

Find related prior work
Identify novelty claims
Check citation completeness
Verify originality

Feedback Generation

Structured review reports
Specific, actionable comments
Line-by-line annotations
Summary recommendations

Review Process

Phase 1: Initial Read

Read abstract and introduction
Understand claimed contributions
Skim methodology and results
Form initial impression

Phase 2: Detailed Analysis

Carefully read methodology
Evaluate experimental design
Check result validity
Assess reproducibility

Phase 3: Comparative Check

Search for related work
Verify novelty claims
Check citation coverage
Identify missing references

Phase 4: Report Writing

Summarize paper
List strengths
Detail weaknesses
Provide recommendations

Feedback Templates

Major Issue

[MAJOR] Section X, Page Y
Issue: [Clear description]
Impact: [Why this matters]
Suggestion: [How to address]

Minor Issue

[MINOR] Section X
Observation: [Description]
Suggestion: [Improvement]

Question

[QUESTION] Section X
The authors claim [X]. Could you clarify:
- [Specific question]
- [Related concern]

Review Report Structure

# Paper Review: [Title]

## Summary
[2-3 sentence overview]

## Strengths
1. [Strength with explanation]
2. [Strength with explanation]

## Weaknesses
### Major Issues
1. [Issue with suggestion]

### Minor Issues
1. [Issue with suggestion]

## Questions for Authors
1. [Question]

## Detailed Comments
[Section-by-section feedback]

## Recommendation
[ ] Accept
[ ] Minor Revision
[ ] Major Revision
[ ] Reject

Confidence: [1-5]

Tool Examples

Load and read an arXiv paper for review

arxiv_to_prompt arxiv_id="2303.08774"

Load a PDF submission

load_pdf source="/workspace/papers/submission.pdf"

Write the review report

update_notes content="<h1>Paper Review: [Title]</h1><h2>Summary</h2><p>...</p><h2>Strengths</h2><ol><li>...</li></ol><h2>Weaknesses</h2><h3>Major Issues</h3><ol><li>...</li></ol><h2>Recommendation</h2><p>Minor Revision — Confidence: 4/5</p>"

Best Practices

Be Constructive: Focus on improvement, not criticism
Be Specific: Point to exact locations and issues
Be Fair: Acknowledge strengths before weaknesses
Verify completeness: Before writing the final report, confirm you have reviewed all major sections and identified at least 3 strengths

---name: peer-review-5description: Conduct thorough academic peer reviews with structured feedback using load_pdf and arxiv_to_prompt. Use when the user asks to review a paper, provide manuscript feedback, critique research, or write a referee report.---# Peer Review Skill## DescriptionConduct thorough academic peer reviews with structured, constructive feedback.## Tools Used- `load_pdf` - Load PDF papers in the workspace viewer (auto-switches to PDF reader)- `arxiv_to_prompt` - Convert arXiv papers to readable text for analysis- `update_notes` - Write review reports to the Notes editor## Capabilities### Paper Analysis- Extract and summarize main contributions- Identify methodology and approach- Evaluate experimental design- Assess writing quality### Comparative Analysis- Find related prior work- Identify novelty claims- Check citation completeness- Verify originality### Feedback Generation- Structured review reports- Specific, actionable comments- Line-by-line annotations- Summary recommendations## Review Process### Phase 1: Initial Read1. Read abstract and introduction2. Understand claimed contributions3. Skim methodology and results4. Form initial impression### Phase 2: Detailed Analysis1. Carefully read methodology2. Evaluate experimental design3. Check result validity4. Assess reproducibility### Phase 3: Comparative Check1. Search for related work2. Verify novelty claims3. Check citation coverage4. Identify missing references### Phase 4: Report Writing1. Summarize paper2. List strengths3. Detail weaknesses4. Provide recommendations## Feedback Templates### Major Issue```[MAJOR] Section X, Page YIssue: [Clear description]Impact: [Why this matters]Suggestion: [How to address]```### Minor Issue```[MINOR] Section XObservation: [Description]Suggestion: [Improvement]```### Question```[QUESTION] Section XThe authors claim [X]. Could you clarify:- [Specific question]- [Related concern]```## Review Report Structure```markdown# Paper Review: [Title]## Summary[2-3 sentence overview]## Strengths1. [Strength with explanation]2. [Strength with explanation]## Weaknesses### Major Issues1. [Issue with suggestion]### Minor Issues1. [Issue with suggestion]## Questions for Authors1. [Question]## Detailed Comments[Section-by-section feedback]## Recommendation[ ] Accept[ ] Minor Revision[ ] Major Revision[ ] RejectConfidence: [1-5]```## Tool Examples### Load and read an arXiv paper for review```arxiv_to_prompt arxiv_id="2303.08774"```### Load a PDF submission```load_pdf source="/workspace/papers/submission.pdf"```### Write the review report```update_notes content="<h1>Paper Review: [Title]</h1><h2>Summary</h2><p>...</p><h2>Strengths</h2><ol><li>...</li></ol><h2>Weaknesses</h2><h3>Major Issues</h3><ol><li>...</li></ol><h2>Recommendation</h2><p>Minor Revision — Confidence: 4/5</p>"```## Best Practices1. **Be Constructive**: Focus on improvement, not criticism2. **Be Specific**: Point to exact locations and issues3. **Be Fair**: Acknowledge strengths before weaknesses4. **Verify completeness**: Before writing the final report, confirm you have reviewed all major sections and identified at least 3 strengths

Frequently asked questions