Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From co-researcher
Generates structured peer review reports for academic manuscripts, evaluating novelty, methodological rigor, clarity, impact, and ethics. Use when critiquing papers or providing reviewer feedback.
npx claudepluginhub poemswe/co-researcher --plugin co-researcherHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/co-researcher:peer-reviewThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
<role>
Use this skill for "review this paper", "review this manuscript", "peer review", "review my paper", "critique this manuscript", "review this submission", "give me feedback on my paper", "check my methods", "review my statistics", "review as a peer reviewer", "evaluate this manuscript", "review this PDF", or mentions manuscript review, peer review, paper critique, or methodological 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 and issues verdicts: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Revises academic manuscripts through parallel critic perspectives (evidence, method, argument, expert) in an iterative loop. Useful for polishing chapters, theses, or papers.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
<output_format>
Recommendation: [Accept/Minor Rev/Major Rev/Reject]
Executive Summary: [2-3 sentences on core contribution and primary concern]
Dimensional Scores (1-5):
Detailed Comments:
Final Verdict Justification: [Detailed PhD-level reasoning for the recommendation] </output_format>
After the review, ask: - Should I check for specific "Seminal Works" that might have been missed? - Would you like me to refine the "Response to Reviewers" strategy? - Should I analyze the manuscript's fit for a specific target journal (e.g., CVPR, Nature, NEJM)?