How do I install the Peer Review skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add richard-kim-79/peer-review 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. 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. This skill is licensed under MIT.

Who published Peer Review?

richard-kim-79 (@richard-kim-79) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Peer Review by richard-kim-79 — Agent Skill

Name: Peer Review
Author: richard-kim-79

Peer Review

Simulates a full academic journal peer review with EIC decision and 3 independent reviewers (Methodology Expert, Domain Specialist, Devil's Advocate). Scores 1–10, provides major/minor comments, and issues a final verdict: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Use when the user asks for a peer review, journal-quality feedback, readiness assessment, or to simulate reviewer responses before submission.

File contents

Peer Review Simulation

Simulate a rigorous journal peer review process with multiple independent reviewers.

Reviewers

Role	Focus
Editor-in-Chief (EIC)	Overall fit, quality, editorial decision
Reviewer 1 — Methodology Expert	Research design, statistical rigor, reproducibility
Reviewer 2 — Domain Specialist	Theoretical framework, literature coverage, contribution
Reviewer 3 — Devil's Advocate	Weaknesses, alternative interpretations, ethical concerns

Scoring

1–4: Reject
5–6: Major revision needed
7–8: Minor revision; publishable with changes
9–10: Accept; exceptional work

Verdicts

ACCEPT — publishable as-is
MINOR_REVISION — small changes needed; likely accepted after revision
MAJOR_REVISION — significant work required; re-review needed
REJECT — fundamental issues; not suitable for this venue

Output Format

# 🔬 Peer Review Simulation

> **Final Decision: 🟠 Major Revision** | Overall Score: **6/10**

## Editor-in-Chief Decision

**Decision:** 🟠 Major Revision
**Score:** 6/10

[3–4 sentence editorial summary]

---

## Reviewer Reports

### 🔬 Reviewer 1: Methodology Expert

**Recommendation:** 🟠 Major Revision | **Score:** 6/10

[Overall impression]

**Major Concerns:**
- [Critical issue 1]
- [Critical issue 2]

**Minor Suggestions:**
- [Minor suggestion 1]

---
[... repeat for each reviewer ...]

## 🟠 Final Decision: Major Revision

### Priority Action Items

- [ ] [Most important revision 1]
- [ ] [Most important revision 2]
- [ ] [Most important revision 3]

| Reviewer | Score | Recommendation |
|----------|-------|----------------|
| Editor-in-Chief | 6/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |
| Methodology Expert | 6/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |
| Domain Specialist | 7/10 | 🟡 Minor Revision |
| Devil's Advocate | 5/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |

Guidelines for honest reviews

Score calibration: theoretical-only papers without original data should score 5–7 max
Reviewers must disagree sometimes — a spread of 5–7 across reviewers is healthy
Major concerns must reference specific claims or sections in the paper
Minor suggestions must be genuinely minor — not disguised major concerns
Devil's Advocate must find real weaknesses, not be contrarian for its own sake

---name: peer-reviewdescription: Simulates a full academic journal peer review with EIC decision and 3 independent reviewers (Methodology Expert, Domain Specialist, Devil's Advocate). Scores 1–10, provides major/minor comments, and issues a final verdict: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Use when the user asks for a peer review, journal-quality feedback, readiness assessment, or to simulate reviewer responses before submission.license: MIT---# Peer Review SimulationSimulate a rigorous journal peer review process with multiple independent reviewers.## Reviewers| Role | Focus ||------|-------|| **Editor-in-Chief (EIC)** | Overall fit, quality, editorial decision || **Reviewer 1 — Methodology Expert** | Research design, statistical rigor, reproducibility || **Reviewer 2 — Domain Specialist** | Theoretical framework, literature coverage, contribution || **Reviewer 3 — Devil's Advocate** | Weaknesses, alternative interpretations, ethical concerns |## Scoring- **1–4**: Reject- **5–6**: Major revision needed- **7–8**: Minor revision; publishable with changes- **9–10**: Accept; exceptional work## Verdicts- `ACCEPT` — publishable as-is- `MINOR_REVISION` — small changes needed; likely accepted after revision- `MAJOR_REVISION` — significant work required; re-review needed- `REJECT` — fundamental issues; not suitable for this venue## Output Format```markdown# 🔬 Peer Review Simulation> **Final Decision: 🟠 Major Revision** | Overall Score: **6/10**## Editor-in-Chief Decision**Decision:** 🟠 Major Revision**Score:** 6/10[3–4 sentence editorial summary]---## Reviewer Reports### 🔬 Reviewer 1: Methodology Expert**Recommendation:** 🟠 Major Revision | **Score:** 6/10[Overall impression]**Major Concerns:**- [Critical issue 1]- [Critical issue 2]**Minor Suggestions:**- [Minor suggestion 1]---[... repeat for each reviewer ...]## 🟠 Final Decision: Major Revision### Priority Action Items- [ ] [Most important revision 1]- [ ] [Most important revision 2]- [ ] [Most important revision 3]| Reviewer | Score | Recommendation ||----------|-------|----------------|| Editor-in-Chief | 6/10 | 🟠 Major Revision || Methodology Expert | 6/10 | 🟠 Major Revision || Domain Specialist | 7/10 | 🟡 Minor Revision || Devil's Advocate | 5/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |```## Guidelines for honest reviews- Score calibration: theoretical-only papers without original data should score 5–7 max- Reviewers must disagree sometimes — a spread of 5–7 across reviewers is healthy- Major concerns must reference specific claims or sections in the paper- Minor suggestions must be genuinely minor — not disguised major concerns- Devil's Advocate must find real weaknesses, not be contrarian for its own sake

Frequently asked questions