Nature Reviewer Assessment Skill
Use this skill to simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment package from the referee
side.
This skill is for reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, not for drafting the authors'
response. If the user wants rebuttal writing, route to nature-response.
Default stance
- Ground the review only in the local source basis plus manuscript facts supplied by the user.
- Evaluate the manuscript against source-grounded axes:
originality, scientific importance, interdisciplinary readership, technical soundness, and readability for nonspecialists.
- Return exactly
3 reviewer reports + 1 cross-review synthesis unless the user explicitly asks for another structure.
- The three reviewers may differ only in
emphasis; do not invent reviewer identities, specialties, institutions, or biographies.
- Identify who would be interested in the results and why.
- Identify technical failings that must be addressed before the authors' case is established.
- Distinguish clearly between what is supported, what is weak, and what is not assessable from the provided material.
- When the manuscript has a clear technical domain, use claim-dependent domain gates as supporting checks, but keep the output inside the same 3-reviewer
nature-reviewer structure.
- Do not claim the editor's final decision or certainty about fit to
Nature.
Accepted inputs
The skill may receive:
- full manuscript draft
- abstract, summary paragraph, or cover-summary style text
- introduction, results, discussion, or methods excerpts
- figure legends, selected figures, or result notes
- author notes in Chinese or English describing the claimed contribution
- pre-submission positioning notes
If the provided material is partial, perform a bounded review and mark the assessment boundary explicitly.
Workflow
- Identify the input scope and whether the job is a reviewer-style assessment rather than rebuttal drafting.
- Extract a shared manuscript fact base: main claim, visible evidence, claimed significance, likely readership, and visible limitations.
- Check readiness and label missing evidence or missing sections instead of inventing them.
- Assess the manuscript using the source-grounded axes.
- If the manuscript clearly falls into a technical domain covered by
references/domain-specific-review-gates.md, load only the relevant domain section and use it to sharpen the technical-soundness critique.
- Generate
Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, and Reviewer 3 using shared facts but different emphasis.
- Generate a
Cross-review synthesis that captures consensus and weighting differences.
- Run QA for groundedness, coverage, role boundaries, and non-invention.
Output format
Unless the user asks for another format, return:
Review setup
- Input scope:
- Assessment boundary:
- Shared manuscript claim summary:
- Visible evidence base:
- Missing materials affecting confidence:
Reviewer 1
- Overall assessment:
- Who would be interested in the results, and why:
- Major strengths:
- Major concerns:
- Technical failings that need to be addressed before the case is established:
- Assessment against Nature-style criteria:
- Recommendation posture:
Reviewer 2
[Same structure]
Reviewer 3
[Same structure]
Cross-review synthesis
- Consensus strengths:
- Consensus technical risks:
- Where emphasis differs across reviewers:
- Broad-interest / significance readout:
- Most important issues to resolve before a strong Nature-style case is established:
Risk / unsupported claims
- [specific unsupported or not-assessable items]
Red lines
- Do not invent reviewer identities, specialty roles, or selection history.
- Do not invent experiments, validations, controls, citations, figure details, line numbers, or prior-work distinctions not present in the input.
- Do not silently turn reviewer assessment into author rebuttal drafting.
- Do not present the review as an editorial decision letter.
- Do not state that the manuscript belongs in
Nature as a settled fact.
- Do not omit technical failings when the provided evidence does not establish the authors' case.
Related files
| File |
Open when |
| references/source-basis.md |
You need source provenance, local rule summaries, or source-vs-implementation boundaries |
| references/reviewer-workflow.md |
You need the invocation order, fact-base extraction flow, or synthesis rules |
| references/review-axes.md |
You need the evaluation axes or reviewer weighting logic |
| references/domain-specific-review-gates.md |
The manuscript has clear chemistry, engineering, materials, atmospheric, climate-ecology, hydrology, or remote-sensing evidence chains |
| references/report-structure.md |
You need the default output contract or section anatomy |
| references/role-boundaries.md |
You need constraints on reviewer differences and editor-versus-reviewer boundaries |
| references/qa-checklist.md |
You are finalizing an output and need groundedness / non-invention checks |
| [references/editorial criteria and processes.md](references/editorial criteria and processes.md) |
You need the primary local Nature source text |
Source hierarchy
Use sources in this order:
references/editorial criteria and processes.md- manuscript facts supplied by the user
- conservative local implementation rules documented in
references/source-basis.md
- domain-specific supporting gates in
references/domain-specific-review-gates.md
If a user asks for policy-level certainty beyond this local source, state the limit instead of improvising broader journal policy.
1---2name: nature-reviewer3description: Simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment from the referee perspective rather than an author rebuttal. Use when the user wants a pre-submission review, reviewer report, peer-review style critique, novelty/significance/technical soundness assessment, reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, 审稿人视角评估, 预审稿意见, or Nature reviewer report. Return 3 reviewer reports plus a cross-review synthesis, grounded only in the local Nature reviewer source basis. Also trigger on general pre-submission review requests during academic writing even without the word "Nature", such as getting a mock peer review for any journal, critiquing a draft as a reviewer would, assessing novelty/rigor before submission, and Chinese phrasings like 审稿人视角、模拟审稿、预审、帮我审一下论文、投稿前自审、审稿意见模拟、找论文问题.4---56# Nature Reviewer Assessment Skill78Use this skill to simulate a `Nature`-style reviewer assessment package from the referee9side.1011This skill is for reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, not for drafting the authors'12response. If the user wants rebuttal writing, route to `nature-response`.1314## Default stance1516- Ground the review only in the local source basis plus manuscript facts supplied by the user.17- Evaluate the manuscript against source-grounded axes: `originality`, `scientific importance`, `interdisciplinary readership`, `technical soundness`, and `readability for nonspecialists`.18- Return exactly `3 reviewer reports + 1 cross-review synthesis` unless the user explicitly asks for another structure.19- The three reviewers may differ only in `emphasis`; do not invent reviewer identities, specialties, institutions, or biographies.20- Identify who would be interested in the results and why.21- Identify technical failings that must be addressed before the authors' case is established.22- Distinguish clearly between what is supported, what is weak, and what is not assessable from the provided material.23- When the manuscript has a clear technical domain, use claim-dependent domain gates as supporting checks, but keep the output inside the same 3-reviewer `nature-reviewer` structure.24- Do not claim the editor's final decision or certainty about fit to `Nature`.2526## Accepted inputs2728The skill may receive:2930- full manuscript draft31- abstract, summary paragraph, or cover-summary style text32- introduction, results, discussion, or methods excerpts33- figure legends, selected figures, or result notes34- author notes in Chinese or English describing the claimed contribution35- pre-submission positioning notes3637If the provided material is partial, perform a bounded review and mark the assessment boundary explicitly.3839## Workflow40411. Identify the input scope and whether the job is a reviewer-style assessment rather than rebuttal drafting.422. Extract a shared manuscript fact base: main claim, visible evidence, claimed significance, likely readership, and visible limitations.433. Check readiness and label missing evidence or missing sections instead of inventing them.444. Assess the manuscript using the source-grounded axes.455. If the manuscript clearly falls into a technical domain covered by `references/domain-specific-review-gates.md`, load only the relevant domain section and use it to sharpen the technical-soundness critique.466. Generate `Reviewer 1`, `Reviewer 2`, and `Reviewer 3` using shared facts but different emphasis.477. Generate a `Cross-review synthesis` that captures consensus and weighting differences.488. Run QA for groundedness, coverage, role boundaries, and non-invention.4950## Output format5152Unless the user asks for another format, return:5354```text55Review setup56- Input scope:57- Assessment boundary:58- Shared manuscript claim summary:59- Visible evidence base:60- Missing materials affecting confidence:6162Reviewer 163- Overall assessment:64- Who would be interested in the results, and why:65- Major strengths:66- Major concerns:67- Technical failings that need to be addressed before the case is established:68- Assessment against Nature-style criteria:69- Recommendation posture:7071Reviewer 272[Same structure]7374Reviewer 375[Same structure]7677Cross-review synthesis78- Consensus strengths:79- Consensus technical risks:80- Where emphasis differs across reviewers:81- Broad-interest / significance readout:82- Most important issues to resolve before a strong Nature-style case is established:8384Risk / unsupported claims85- [specific unsupported or not-assessable items]86```8788## Red lines8990- Do not invent reviewer identities, specialty roles, or selection history.91- Do not invent experiments, validations, controls, citations, figure details, line numbers, or prior-work distinctions not present in the input.92- Do not silently turn reviewer assessment into author rebuttal drafting.93- Do not present the review as an editorial decision letter.94- Do not state that the manuscript belongs in `Nature` as a settled fact.95- Do not omit technical failings when the provided evidence does not establish the authors' case.9697## Related files9899| File | Open when |100|---|---|101| [references/source-basis.md](references/source-basis.md) | You need source provenance, local rule summaries, or source-vs-implementation boundaries |102| [references/reviewer-workflow.md](references/reviewer-workflow.md) | You need the invocation order, fact-base extraction flow, or synthesis rules |103| [references/review-axes.md](references/review-axes.md) | You need the evaluation axes or reviewer weighting logic |104| [references/domain-specific-review-gates.md](references/domain-specific-review-gates.md) | The manuscript has clear chemistry, engineering, materials, atmospheric, climate-ecology, hydrology, or remote-sensing evidence chains |105| [references/report-structure.md](references/report-structure.md) | You need the default output contract or section anatomy |106| [references/role-boundaries.md](references/role-boundaries.md) | You need constraints on reviewer differences and editor-versus-reviewer boundaries |107| [references/qa-checklist.md](references/qa-checklist.md) | You are finalizing an output and need groundedness / non-invention checks |108| [references/editorial criteria and processes.md](references/editorial criteria and processes.md) | You need the primary local Nature source text |109110## Source hierarchy111112Use sources in this order:1131141. `references/editorial criteria and processes.md`1152. manuscript facts supplied by the user1163. conservative local implementation rules documented in `references/source-basis.md`1174. domain-specific supporting gates in `references/domain-specific-review-gates.md`118119If a user asks for policy-level certainty beyond this local source, state the limit instead of improvising broader journal policy.
om-scogo