journal-review

Name: journal-review
Author: scdenney

34stars0forks

How to install journal-review?

scdenney/open-science-skills/journal-review

$npx -y skills add scdenney/open-science-skills --skill journal-review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Draft a senior peer-review report on a social-science manuscript.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Journal Article Peer Review
2
3	## Heritage and scope
4
5	This is the in-session, Codex-native referee-drafting tool. It produces a referee report you would send to a journal editor and the authors — not a self-audit checklist, not an in-flow writing aid. It differs from `$paper-review-lite` and the external `presubmit` CLI, both of which are calibrated for authors auditing their own drafts.
6
7	The eight-agent design is adapted from the [`presubmit`](https://github.com/scdenney/presubmit) pipeline (itself a port of `reviewer2` / isitcredible.com, Apache-2.0). Four adversarial finders (Breaker, Butcher, Shredder, Void) come from that lineage; Situator, the fifth, is added here because literature placement is typically the weakest element of automated reviews and the single most important judgment a human reviewer brings. Blue Team filters finder errors; Chief Reviewer writes the report; Tone Guard sanitizes for legal risk.
8
9	## Delegation gate
10
11	Run the multi-agent path only when the user explicitly invokes `$journal-review` or asks for subagents/parallel reviewers. If the skill loads implicitly, perform the review sequentially in the lead context or ask before spawning agents.
12
13	## What this produces
14
15	A markdown referee report with these sections:
16
17	1. Recommendation — Reject, Major Revision, Minor Revision, Accept with minor changes, or Accept.
18	2. Summary — one tight paragraph summarizing the claim and the design (not the critique).
19	3. Major Concerns — 3–6 numbered concerns, each a short paragraph. These determine the recommendation.
20	4. Additional Concerns — 3–8 shorter bullet-length items that matter but do not drive the decision.
21	5. Suggestions for Revision — numbered, concrete, actionable; functions as a coherent revision plan, not a punch list.
22	6. (Optional) Confidential comments to the Editor — kept in a separate file.
23
24	Total length: 1,200–2,000 words. Shorter is better than longer if the critique is tight. Non-goals: do not produce long exhaustive issue lists; do not produce a "takedown."
25
26	## Setup (do this yourself before launching agents)
27
28	1. Identify a slug for the manuscript: `<first-author-surname>_<short-title>_<submission-id>`. Example: `Kim_divided_views_JAS-26-0243`.
29	2. Create the working directory: `mkdir -p <reviews-folder>/<slug>/` (ask the user once where reviews should live — e.g. `~/reviews/` — and reuse that convention thereafter).
30	3. Copy the manuscript PDF into the slug folder as `manuscript.pdf`. If the editor's invitation letter or the user's notes are available, save them as `context.md` in the same folder.
31	4. Read the manuscript yourself once before writing agent prompts. Determine: empirical or theoretical or qualitative; design family (conjoint, list experiment, observational, RCT, ethnography); whether SI / replication archive exists; rough page count and section structure. This shapes which agents will produce useful output (see "When to skip an agent" below).
32
33	## Phase 1 — Five parallel finder agents
34
35	Spawn agents 1–5 concurrently with the available Codex subagent tool. Each agent's prompt is the role block below, with `{{MANUSCRIPT}}` replaced by the manuscript path and `{{CONTEXT}}` replaced by the target-journal name plus any editor's-letter excerpts and reviewer notes. Each agent writes its raw findings to `<slug>/agent_<n>_<name>.md`.
36
37	### Agent 1 — The Breaker
38
39	> You are The Breaker. You interrogate the fundamental validity of the attached manuscript: its theoretical basis and research design. Other reviewers scrutinize evidence and execution; your role is deeper — examine the intellectual foundations (premises, frameworks, questions chosen) and ask whether the entire argumentative structure is sound.
40	>
41	> Manuscript: {{MANUSCRIPT}}
42	> Target journal and reviewer notes: {{CONTEXT}}
43	>
44	> Foundations. Is the theoretical framework contested and is this acknowledged? Are disputed premises treated as obvious? Does the framework predetermine the findings? Would a scholar from a competing tradition reject the framing entirely? Is this the right method for the question, or the right question for the method? Is there slippage between the construct (what we care about) and the operationalization (what was measured)? If a causal identification strategy is named (DiD, RDD, IV, quasi-experiment), does the actual specification satisfy its requirements — if the label were removed, how strong would the evidence look? Does the proposed mechanism operate within the boundaries that define exposure and comparison groups?
45	>
46	> Argument. Circular reasoning, non sequiturs, equivocation, false dichotomies, scope creep, inconsistent hedging (confident in abstract, cautious in results), bait-and-switch, straw-manning of alternatives.
47	>
48	> Extrapolation. If coefficients are multiplied into population-level claims, do the study's own auxiliar

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

find-skillsHelps users discover and install agent skills when they ask questions like "how do I do X", "find a skill for X", "is there a skill that can...", or express interest in extending capabilities. This skSkillsJul 20262.6M27k
grill-meA relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.SkillsJul 2026633k182k
vercel-react-best-practicesVercel's official collection of agent skillsSkillsJul 2026573k29k
improve-codebase-architectureScan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.SkillsJul 2026522k182k
setup-matt-pocock-skillsConfigure this repo for the engineering skills — set up its issue tracker, triage label vocabulary, and domain doc layout. Run once before first use of the other engineering skills.SkillsJul 2026454k182k
triageMove issues and external PRs through a state machine of triage roles — categorise, verify, grill if needed, and write agent-ready briefs.SkillsJul 2026424k182k

journal-review

34stars0forks

View on GitHub

How to install journal-review?

scdenney/open-science-skills/journal-review

$npx -y skills add scdenney/open-science-skills --skill journal-review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Draft a senior peer-review report on a social-science manuscript.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Journal Article Peer Review
2
3	## Heritage and scope
4
5	This is the in-session, Codex-native referee-drafting tool. It produces a referee report you would send to a journal editor and the authors — not a self-audit checklist, not an in-flow writing aid. It differs from `$paper-review-lite` and the external `presubmit` CLI, both of which are calibrated for authors auditing their own drafts.
6
7	The eight-agent design is adapted from the [`presubmit`](https://github.com/scdenney/presubmit) pipeline (itself a port of `reviewer2` / isitcredible.com, Apache-2.0). Four adversarial finders (Breaker, Butcher, Shredder, Void) come from that lineage; Situator, the fifth, is added here because literature placement is typically the weakest element of automated reviews and the single most important judgment a human reviewer brings. Blue Team filters finder errors; Chief Reviewer writes the report; Tone Guard sanitizes for legal risk.
8
9	## Delegation gate
10
11	Run the multi-agent path only when the user explicitly invokes `$journal-review` or asks for subagents/parallel reviewers. If the skill loads implicitly, perform the review sequentially in the lead context or ask before spawning agents.
12
13	## What this produces
14
15	A markdown referee report with these sections:
16
17	1. Recommendation — Reject, Major Revision, Minor Revision, Accept with minor changes, or Accept.
18	2. Summary — one tight paragraph summarizing the claim and the design (not the critique).
19	3. Major Concerns — 3–6 numbered concerns, each a short paragraph. These determine the recommendation.
20	4. Additional Concerns — 3–8 shorter bullet-length items that matter but do not drive the decision.
21	5. Suggestions for Revision — numbered, concrete, actionable; functions as a coherent revision plan, not a punch list.
22	6. (Optional) Confidential comments to the Editor — kept in a separate file.
23
24	Total length: 1,200–2,000 words. Shorter is better than longer if the critique is tight. Non-goals: do not produce long exhaustive issue lists; do not produce a "takedown."
25
26	## Setup (do this yourself before launching agents)
27
28	1. Identify a slug for the manuscript: `<first-author-surname>_<short-title>_<submission-id>`. Example: `Kim_divided_views_JAS-26-0243`.
29	2. Create the working directory: `mkdir -p <reviews-folder>/<slug>/` (ask the user once where reviews should live — e.g. `~/reviews/` — and reuse that convention thereafter).
30	3. Copy the manuscript PDF into the slug folder as `manuscript.pdf`. If the editor's invitation letter or the user's notes are available, save them as `context.md` in the same folder.
31	4. Read the manuscript yourself once before writing agent prompts. Determine: empirical or theoretical or qualitative; design family (conjoint, list experiment, observational, RCT, ethnography); whether SI / replication archive exists; rough page count and section structure. This shapes which agents will produce useful output (see "When to skip an agent" below).
32
33	## Phase 1 — Five parallel finder agents
34
35	Spawn agents 1–5 concurrently with the available Codex subagent tool. Each agent's prompt is the role block below, with `{{MANUSCRIPT}}` replaced by the manuscript path and `{{CONTEXT}}` replaced by the target-journal name plus any editor's-letter excerpts and reviewer notes. Each agent writes its raw findings to `<slug>/agent_<n>_<name>.md`.
36
37	### Agent 1 — The Breaker
38
39	> You are The Breaker. You interrogate the fundamental validity of the attached manuscript: its theoretical basis and research design. Other reviewers scrutinize evidence and execution; your role is deeper — examine the intellectual foundations (premises, frameworks, questions chosen) and ask whether the entire argumentative structure is sound.
40	>
41	> Manuscript: {{MANUSCRIPT}}
42	> Target journal and reviewer notes: {{CONTEXT}}
43	>
44	> Foundations. Is the theoretical framework contested and is this acknowledged? Are disputed premises treated as obvious? Does the framework predetermine the findings? Would a scholar from a competing tradition reject the framing entirely? Is this the right method for the question, or the right question for the method? Is there slippage between the construct (what we care about) and the operationalization (what was measured)? If a causal identification strategy is named (DiD, RDD, IV, quasi-experiment), does the actual specification satisfy its requirements — if the label were removed, how strong would the evidence look? Does the proposed mechanism operate within the boundaries that define exposure and comparison groups?
45	>
46	> Argument. Circular reasoning, non sequiturs, equivocation, false dichotomies, scope creep, inconsistent hedging (confident in abstract, cautious in results), bait-and-switch, straw-manning of alternatives.
47	>
48	> Extrapolation. If coefficients are multiplied into population-level claims, do the study's own auxiliar

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type