New: 98,000+ skills indexed from GitHub repos with 100+ stars · every skill safety-checkedBrowse top skillsTop skills
Esc to closeBrowse all skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills

Agent skill

Peer Review

by aipoch in aipoch/medical-research-skills

Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic…

MITAuto-check passedResearch & Science

Install Peer Review

skills CLI
$ npx skills add aipoch/medical-research-skills --skill peer-review -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install aipoch/medical-research-skills peer-review --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/'scientific-skills/Academic Writing/peer-review' .claude/skills/peer-review && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
peer-review
GitHub stars
2k
Token cost
~1.4k tokens
SKILL.md length
409 words
Files
4 (incl. references, assets)
Skills in repo
578
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic…

  • Works in 2 steps: Open the template → Fill it using the workflow below.…
  • You need a pre-submission assessment
  • SKILL.md covers When to Use, Key Features, Dependencies and Example Usage, plus 1 more section
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Peer Review is an agent skill from aipoch/medical-research-skills. Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic quality control.

Its SKILL.md is about 1.4k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 5 other files, including reference files and assets (for example `assets/peer_review_template.md`, `peer-review_audit_result_v1.json` and `references/guide.md`).

It sits in Research & Science, covering Peer review. The repository describes itself as: Hundreds of agent skills for medical research, including protocol design, data analysis, evidence insights, and academic writing. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • You need a pre-submission assessment
  • An internal review
  • Academic quality control

Example prompts

  • “/peer-review”

Workflow steps

2 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Open the template
  2. Fill it using the workflow below. Example (copy/paste and complete)

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 686e09d. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md (its code samples are markdown).

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Peer Review loads about 1.4k tokens when it runs, and up to ~1.5k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 56 tokens; SKILL.md has 409 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~56
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~1.4k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~1.5k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from aipoch/medical-research-skills at commit 686e09d, republished under its MIT licence (© aipoch). 409 words, ~1,389 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/peer-review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 3 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
peer-review
description
Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic quality control.
license
MIT
author
AIPOCH

Source: https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills

Peer Review

When to Use

  • Pre-submission manuscript check: Before submitting to a journal/conference to identify major risks and revision priorities.
  • Internal lab/group review: For advisor or team quality control prior to external dissemination.
  • Thesis/dissertation evaluation: To assess academic rigor, structure, and defensibility before committee review.
  • Revision planning after feedback: To translate reviewer/editor comments into an actionable improvement roadmap.
  • Quality assurance for research outputs: To ensure methods, reporting, and conclusions meet disciplinary standards.

Key Features

  • Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall evaluation → methods/results check → issue organization → recommendation.
  • Major vs. minor issue triage: Separates publication-blocking problems from polish-level improvements.
  • Actionable revision suggestions: Each issue is paired with concrete steps to fix or strengthen the work.
  • Recommendation with rationale: Clear accept/revise/reject guidance with reasons and improvement path.
  • Reusable templates and checklists: Supports consistent formatting and comprehensive coverage (see referenced files).

Dependencies

  • None (runtime)

Example Usage

Use the template to produce a structured review.

  1. Open the template:

    • assets/peer_review_template.md

  2. Fill it using the workflow below. Example (copy/paste and complete):

markdown
# Peer Review Report

## 1. Overall Evaluation
**Summary of the work:**  
This paper investigates [research question] by using [method/data]. The main contributions are: (1) [...], (2) [...].

**Novelty and significance:**  
- Novelty: [high/medium/low] because [...]
- Significance: [high/medium/low] because [...]

## 2. Methods and Results
**Research design and methodology:**  
- Appropriateness of design: [...]
- Data and sampling: [...]
- Statistical/analytical methods: [...]
- Reproducibility (code/data availability, parameter reporting): [...]

**Results vs. conclusions:**  
- Do results support claims? [...]
- Alternative explanations addressed? [...]
- Robustness checks/ablation/sensitivity analysis: [...]

## 3. Issues and Revision Suggestions

### Major Issues (must address)
1. **Issue:** [...]
   - **Why it matters:** [...]
   - **Suggested fix:** [...]
   - **Expected impact:** [...]

2. **Issue:** [...]
   - **Why it matters:** [...]
   - **Suggested fix:** [...]
   - **Expected impact:** [...]

### Minor Issues (should address)
1. **Issue:** [...]
   - **Suggested fix:** [...]

2. **Issue:** [...]
   - **Suggested fix:** [...]

## 4. Recommendation
**Recommendation:** Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject

**Rationale:**  
Explain the decision based on novelty, rigor, clarity, and evidence strength.

**Path to improvement:**  
List the top 3–5 changes that would most improve the manuscript.

For output formats, checklists, and inspection points, see:

  • references/guide.md

Implementation Details

Review Workflow (Algorithm)

  1. Read for global understanding

    • Read the abstract and full text to form an overall impression.
    • Identify the research question, claimed contributions, and target audience/venue.

  2. Overall evaluation

    • Summarize the research questions and major contributions.
    • Assess novelty (what is new vs. prior work) and significance (why it matters).

  3. Methods and results verification

    • Check research design, data quality, and statistical/analytical methods for correctness and suitability.
    • Evaluate whether results logically and quantitatively support the conclusions.
    • Flag missing details that prevent replication (e.g., parameters, datasets, baselines, evaluation protocol).

  4. Issue organization

    • Classify findings into:
      • Major issues: validity threats, methodological flaws, unsupported claims, missing critical experiments, ethical/compliance gaps.
      • Minor issues: clarity, formatting, citations, small inconsistencies, language improvements.
    • For each issue, provide an actionable revision suggestion (what to change and how).

  5. Recommendation

    • Provide a decision (accept/revise/reject) aligned with the severity and fixability of major issues.
    • Explain the rationale and provide a prioritized improvement path.
Show full SKILL.md (77 more words)Show less
Key Parameters / Criteria
  • Novelty: degree of differentiation from prior work; clarity of contribution statement.
  • Significance: practical/theoretical impact; relevance to the field and venue.
  • Rigor: appropriateness of methods; correctness of analysis; robustness checks.
  • Evidence alignment: strength of support from results to claims; avoidance of overgeneralization.
  • Reproducibility: completeness of experimental details; availability of data/code; transparent reporting.
  • Clarity and structure: logical flow, readability, figure/table quality, and citation completeness.
Templates and References
  • Template (preferred for structured output): assets/peer_review_template.md
  • Guidance/checklists/output formats: references/guide.md

© aipoch, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 3 other files (references, assets) in scientific-skills/Academic Writing/peer-review of aipoch/medical-research-skills.

  • SKILL.md
  • assets/peer_review_template.md
  • peer-review_audit_result_v1.json
  • references/guide.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 686e09d

Compare with similar skills

Peer Review next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Peer Review compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Peer Review this skillaipoch/medical-research-skills2k—~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Peer Reviewspacering-net/codeg3.9k17 repos~5.9kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
Scholar Evaluationspacering-net/codeg3.9k11 repos~3.2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Academic Paper Writing PipelineImbad0202/academic-research-skills51k—~16kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Academic Paper ReviewerImbad0202/academic-research-skills51k—~11kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Peer ReviewK-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer2.4k2 repos~3.1kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT

Similar skills

  • Peer Review

    spacering-net/codeg

    Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation.

    3.9k GitHub starsUsed in 17 repos~5.9k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check: notes

  • Scholar Evaluation

    spacering-net/codeg

    Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and…

    3.9k GitHub starsUsed in 11 repos~3.2k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Academic Paper Writing Pipeline

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Runs a 12-agent pipeline that plans, drafts, cites, reviews and formats academic papers, with modes for revision, rebuttals, abstracts and citation checks.

    51k GitHub stars~16k tokensUpdated today
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Academic Paper Reviewer

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Simulates a journal peer review of a manuscript with a five-seat reviewer panel, an editorial synthesizer and several review modes.

    51k GitHub stars~11k tokensUpdated today
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Peer Review

    K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer

    Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments.

    2.4k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~3.1k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check: notes

  • Academic Research Pipeline

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Orchestrates a ten-stage academic workflow from research to finished manuscript, including integrity checks, two rounds of peer review and revision.

    51k GitHub stars~15k tokensUpdated today
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

More from aipoch/medical-research-skills

All 578 skills in this repo

  • Academic Poster Generator

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Complete workflow for generating academic research posters from PDF literature; use when you need to extract paper content from PDFs and produce a LaTeX-based poster…

    2k GitHub stars~2.2k tokensUpdated 22 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Diagnostic Study Quality Assessment Quadas

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Analyzes clinical diagnostic accuracy studies for bias using the QUADAS-2 tool.

    2k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 22 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Exploratory Data Analysis

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Perform comprehensive exploratory data analysis on scientific data files across 200+ file formats.

    2k GitHub stars~3.7k tokensUpdated 22 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Iso Certification

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    A toolkit for preparing ISO 13485:2016 certification documentation for medical device QMS.

    2k GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 22 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Journal Skills

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Recommends target journals for manuscript submission by analyzing the paper topic/abstract and the journal distribution of similar PubMed literature; use when users ask for journal…

    2k GitHub stars~1.7k tokensUpdated 22 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Latex Posters

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Creates academic-poster writing packages for LaTeX using beamerposter, tikzposter, or baposter.

    2k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 22 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Peer Review

What does Peer Review do?

Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic…. Peer Review is an agent skill from aipoch/medical-research-skills. Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic quality control.

When should I use Peer Review?

Peer Review fits situations like: you need a pre-submission assessment; an internal review; academic quality control.

How do I install Peer Review in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add aipoch/medical-research-skills --skill peer-review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (scientific-skills/Academic Writing/peer-review in aipoch/medical-research-skills) into .claude/skills/peer-review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Peer Review in Codex?

Run `npx skills add aipoch/medical-research-skills --skill peer-review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (scientific-skills/Academic Writing/peer-review in aipoch/medical-research-skills) into .agents/skills/peer-review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Peer Review in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add aipoch/medical-research-skills --skill peer-review -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/peer-review, .gemini/skills/peer-review, .github/skills/peer-review and .opencode/skills/peer-review in your project.

What does Peer Review need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Peer Review is instructions for the agent only.

Does Peer Review access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Peer Review safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Peer Review use?

Peer Review is published under the MIT licence (declared in SKILL.md). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Peer Review use?

About 1.4k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 5.6k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 148 tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Peer Review?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Peer Review: Peer Review (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Scholar Evaluation (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Academic Paper Writing Pipeline (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars) and Academic Paper Reviewer (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Peer Review?

aipoch (a GitHub organization) maintains it in aipoch/medical-research-skills, which has 1,978 GitHub stars. The repository holds 578 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 17, 2026.

Source: aipoch/medical-research-skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.