Paper Review
EvoScientist/EvoSkills
Guides self-review of YOUR OWN academic paper before submission with adversarial stress-testing.
A skill your agent uses when you need to understand how Psychological Science evaluates a manuscript — anonymized peer review, editorial weighting of robustness, transparency, and preregistration…
Install Psci Review Process
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-review-process -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills psci-review-process --agent claude-codeProject scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process .claude/skills/psci-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.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/
Install the "psci-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process into .claude/skills/psci-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "psci-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.Claude Code copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$skill-installer install https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-processType this inside Codex. $skill-installer <name> installs a curated skill from openai/skills. The installer writes to $CODEX_HOME/skills (default ~/.codex/skills). Restart Codex if the skill does not show up.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-review-process -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills psci-review-process --agent codexProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .agents/skills && cp -r skills-src/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process .agents/skills/psci-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.agents/skills/ instead of .agents/skills for a personal install.
Codex skills documentation · loads skills from .agents/skills/
Install the "psci-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process into .agents/skills/psci-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "psci-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.Codex copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-review-process -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills psci-review-process --agent cursorProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .cursor/skills && cp -r skills-src/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process .cursor/skills/psci-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.cursor/skills/ instead of .cursor/skills for a personal install.
Cursor skills documentation · loads skills from .cursor/skills/, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, .codex/skills/
Install the "psci-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process into .cursor/skills/psci-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "psci-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.Cursor copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gemini skills install https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git --path Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process--scope user (default) or --scope workspace; --path is the subfolder of the repo that holds the skill; --consent skips the security confirmation prompt.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-review-process -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills psci-review-process --agent gemini-cliProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .gemini/skills && cp -r skills-src/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process .gemini/skills/psci-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.gemini/skills/ instead of .gemini/skills for a personal install, then run /skills reload.
Gemini CLI skills documentation · loads skills from .gemini/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "psci-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process into .gemini/skills/psci-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "psci-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.Gemini CLI copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills psci-review-processInstalls for Copilot at project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Preview a skill first with gh skill preview. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-review-process -a github-copilotProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.copilot/skills/.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .github/skills && cp -r skills-src/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process .github/skills/psci-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.copilot/skills/ instead of .github/skills for a personal install. Commit .github/skills so cloud agent and code review can use it.
GitHub Copilot skills documentation · loads skills from .github/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "psci-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process into .github/skills/psci-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "psci-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.GitHub Copilot copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-review-process -a opencodeOpenCode documents no install command of its own. Project install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.config/opencode/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills psci-review-process --agent opencodeProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .opencode/skills && cp -r skills-src/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process .opencode/skills/psci-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.config/opencode/skills/ instead of .opencode/skills for a personal install.
OpenCode skills documentation · loads skills from .opencode/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "psci-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process into .opencode/skills/psci-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "psci-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.OpenCode copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
Facts
- Skill name
psci-review-process- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~1.4k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 530 words
- Files
- 1
- Skills in repo
- 2,387
- Repo updated
- First seen
- Licence
- MIT
At a glance
A skill your agent uses when you need to understand how Psychological Science evaluates a manuscript — anonymized peer review, editorial weighting of robustness, transparency, and preregistration…
- Works in 5 steps: Anonymized review. Initial submissions… → Editorial triage. Editors assess impact,… → External review assesses theoretical… → …
- You need to understand how Psychological Science evaluates a manuscript — anonymized peer review
- SKILL.md covers When to trigger, How review works, Registered Reports route… and Shape the paper to pass, plus 6 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
What it does
Psci Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when you need to understand how Psychological Science evaluates a manuscript — anonymized peer review, editorial weighting of robustness, transparency, and preregistration quality, desk-reject and decline-without-review patterns, and the Registered Reports route. Use when stress-testing a paper before submission or interpreting a decision letter. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
Its SKILL.md is about 1.4k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.
It sits in Research & Science, covering Load testing and Peer review. The repository describes itself as: Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的… The licence is MIT.
When your agent uses it
- You need to understand how Psychological Science evaluates a manuscript — anonymized peer review
- Editorial weighting of robustness
- Preregistration quality
- Desk-reject and decline-without-review patterns
Example prompts
- “/psci-review-process”
Workflow steps
5 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.
- Anonymized review. Initial submissions are anonymized; keep author identity out of the
- Editorial triage. Editors assess impact, breadth, robustness, and fit; the very tight format
- External review assesses theoretical contribution, design and power, analysis and disclosure,
- Transparency is graded. The Research Transparency Statement is shared with reviewers, and
- Decisions. Reject, revise and resubmit, or accept; expect substantive revision and frequent
What it can do on your machine
Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 932eb23. 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.
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
Psci Review Process loads about 1.4k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 115 tokens; SKILL.md has 530 words of instructions outside code blocks.
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 brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills at commit 932eb23, republished under its MIT licence (© brycewang-stanford). 530 words, ~1,395 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/psci-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- psci-review-process
- description
- Use when you need to understand how Psychological Science evaluates a manuscript — anonymized peer review, editorial weighting of robustness, transparency, and preregistration quality, desk-reject and decline-without-review patterns, and the Registered Reports route. Use when stress-testing a paper before submission or interpreting a decision letter. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
Review Process (psci-review-process)
Psychological Science combines high-impact selectivity with strong credibility checks. Reviewers and editors weigh not only whether the finding is interesting, but whether it is robust, adequately powered, and transparent. Knowing this lets you pre-empt the common rejection reasons.
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to stress-test the manuscript
- Deciding whether to use the Registered Reports route
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
How review works
- Anonymized review. Initial submissions are anonymized; keep author identity out of the
manuscript and out of repository links (see
psci-submission). - Editorial triage. Editors assess impact, breadth, robustness, and fit; the very tight format means weak-fit or thin papers may be declined without full review.
- External review assesses theoretical contribution, design and power, analysis and disclosure, and the strength of the claim relative to the evidence.
- Transparency is graded. The Research Transparency Statement is shared with reviewers, and "limits on transparency will be a factor in editorial decisions"; preregistration quality is also weighed.
- Decisions. Reject, revise and resubmit, or accept; expect substantive revision and frequent requests for added robustness, disclosure, or analyses.
Registered Reports route (strongest for confirmatory claims)
- Stage 1: theory + design + analysis plan reviewed before data; in-principle acceptance commits the journal regardless of outcome if you follow the plan. Stage 2 reports the results. This route protects against publication bias and is well suited to confirmatory and replication work (and RR with Existing Data for prior-collected data).
Shape the paper to pass
- Make impact and breadth explicit early; show the result is robust and well-powered.
- Disclose fully and share data/materials (or justify exemptions) — credibility signals matter here.
- Separate confirmatory from exploratory analyses honestly.
- Fit the format — reviewers notice when a paper fights the word limit.
Show full SKILL.md (241 more words)Show less
Desk-reject and decline-without-review patterns
The tight format and credibility screen mean many manuscripts never reach external review. Confirm current categories and limits against the journal's submission guidelines, but recognize these shapes:
| Pattern an editor sees | Likely outcome | Pre-empt it by |
|---|---|---|
| Surprising effect, single small study, no preregistration | declined or RR suggestion | add internal replication; preregister; report power |
| Narrow-paradigm result, no broad-relevance argument | desk reject (fit) | state who outside the subarea inherits the claim |
| "Data available on request," no DOIs | returned for compliance | deposit with persistent IDs before submitting |
| Over the word format, exhibits dumped at the end | returned to author | design to the format; embed exhibits |
| p-values and stars, no effect sizes/CIs | thin-evidence flag | estimation-first reporting |
Worked micro-example (illustrative triage)
Manuscript: two preregistered attention studies (N = 240; N = 300),
open data + materials with DOIs, effect sizes + CIs.
Editor read: impact (load-bearing premise), breadth (clinical inheritance),
robustness (internal replication), transparency (graded — strong).
Likely route: external review, probable R&R for added robustness/disclosure.
Counter-case: same finding, one N = 45 study, no prereg, request-only data
→ likely declined without full review.How reviewers weigh the evidence (calibration anchors)
- A powered internal replication is the single strongest signal you can send; it converts "interesting but fragile" into "credible."
- Transparency is graded, not pass/fail — a candid exemption with an access path reads better than silent opacity. Preregistration quality (specific, dated, followed) matters more than its presence.
- Registered Reports are the venue's structural answer to publication bias; choosing the route after data exist defeats its purpose and reviewers will say so.
Anti-patterns
- A surprising but underpowered, single-study effect
- Weak or absent transparency (counts against the paper)
- Exploratory results dressed as confirmatory
- Expecting acceptance without a robustness/disclosure-heavy R&R
- Choosing a Registered Report after results exist
Output format
【Impact + breadth】clear early? [Y/N]
【Robustness + power】adequate? [Y/N]
【Transparency】data/materials + statement + preregistration strong? [Y/N]
【Confirmatory vs exploratory】honest? [Y/N]
【Route】Research Article vs Registered Report
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / accept
【Next】psci-submission (or psci-rebuttal if decided)Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— review model, transparency weighting, Registered Reports
© brycewang-stanford, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file
Files
Just SKILL.md in Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Psci Review Process 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.
| Skill | Stars | Used in | Tokens | Auto-check | Licence | Repo updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psci Review Process this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills | 1.2k | — | ~1.4k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Paper ReviewEvoScientist/EvoSkills | 478 | — | ~4.5k | Automated safety check: Pass | Apache-2.0 | |
| Weakness Scannerflonat/flonat-research | 146 | — | ~1.5k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| LLM Counciltenfoldmarc/llm-council-skill | 823 | 1 repos | ~4.2k | Automated safety check: Pass | None | |
| Paper ReviewCamusGIT/EvoQuant | 151 | 2 repos | ~2.6k | Automated safety check: Pass | Apache-2.0 | |
| Review Paperpedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow | 1.7k | — | ~7.3k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT |
Similar skills
Weakness Scanner
flonat/flonat-research
Identify recurring weak arguments, unsupported assumptions, and vulnerable inference patterns across a literature corpus.
LLM Council
tenfoldmarc/llm-council-skill
Run any question, idea, or decision through a council of 5 AI advisors who independently analyze it, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a final verdict.
Paper Review
CamusGIT/EvoQuant
Guides self-review of YOUR OWN academic paper before submission with adversarial stress-testing.
Review Paper
pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow
Comprehensive manuscript review with three modes: single-pass (default), --adversarial critic-fixer loop, and --peer [journal] simulated peer-review pipeline (editor + 2 dispositioned referees +…
Grant Mock Reviewer
aipoch/medical-research-skills
Simulate structured grant peer review for biomedical proposals; use when stress-testing significance, innovation, approach, feasibility, and reviewer-facing weaknesses before submission.
More from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
All 2,387 skills in this repoAaag Data Analysis
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when running and reporting the analysis for an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial statistics and modeling, remote-sensing accuracy, or…
Aaag Literature Positioning
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when positioning an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript in the literature — engaging geographic scholarship across the relevant area and the…
Aaag Rebuttal
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when responding to an Annals of the American Association of Geographers decision letter (major/minor revision) — building a point-by-point response to the subject editor and…
Aaag Research Design
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when defending the research design of an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial/quantitative analysis and GIScience, remote-sensing and…
Aaag Review Process
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when you need to understand how the Annals of the American Association of Geographers evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review routed through a subject editor by…
Aaag Submission
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Annals of the American Association of Geographers via ScholarOne Manuscripts — area/article-type selection…
Related
Categories
Questions about Psci Review Process
What does Psci Review Process do?
A skill your agent uses when you need to understand how Psychological Science evaluates a manuscript — anonymized peer review, editorial weighting of robustness, transparency, and preregistration…. Psci Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when you need to understand how Psychological Science evaluates a manuscript — anonymized peer review, editorial weighting of robustness, transparency, and preregistration quality, desk-reject and decline-without-review patterns, and the Registered Reports route.
When should I use Psci Review Process?
Psci Review Process fits situations like: you need to understand how Psychological Science evaluates a manuscript — anonymized peer review; editorial weighting of robustness; preregistration quality; desk-reject and decline-without-review patterns.
How do I install Psci Review Process in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/psci-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Psci Review Process in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/psci-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Psci Review Process 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 brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-review-process -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/psci-review-process, .gemini/skills/psci-review-process, .github/skills/psci-review-process and .opencode/skills/psci-review-process in your project.
What does Psci Review Process need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Psci Review Process is instructions for the agent only.
Does Psci Review Process 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 Psci Review Process 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 Psci Review Process use?
Psci Review Process is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.
How many tokens does Psci Review Process 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.
What are the alternatives to Psci Review Process?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Psci Review Process: Paper Review (EvoScientist/EvoSkills, 478 stars), Weakness Scanner (flonat/flonat-research, 146 stars), LLM Council (tenfoldmarc/llm-council-skill, 823 stars) and Paper Review (CamusGIT/EvoQuant, 151 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Psci Review Process?
brycewang-stanford (a GitHub user) maintains it in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, which has 1,231 GitHub stars. The repository holds 2,387 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 27, 2026.
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.