Stats
Actions
Tags
Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From archora-research
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.
npx claudepluginhub richard-kim-79/archora-skillsHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/archora-research:peer-reviewThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Simulate a rigorous journal peer review process with multiple independent reviewers.
Simulates a multi-perspective academic peer review with 5 reviewer personas (EIC, 3 peers, Devil's Advocate) and multiple review modes including full review, re-review, quick assessment, methodology focus, and guided Socratic review.
Generates structured peer review reports for academic manuscripts, evaluating novelty, methodological rigor, clarity, impact, and ethics. Use when critiquing papers or providing reviewer feedback.
Assists writing constructive peer reviews, evaluating anthropology manuscripts, and responding to reviewer feedback for journals.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Simulate a rigorous journal peer review process with multiple independent 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 |
ACCEPT — publishable as-isMINOR_REVISION — small changes needed; likely accepted after revisionMAJOR_REVISION — significant work required; re-review neededREJECT — fundamental issues; not suitable for this venue# 🔬 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 |