Agent-Skills.md

Agent Skills: Peer Review

Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

UncategorizedID: drshailesh88/integrated_content_OS/peer-review
2

Install this agent skill to your local

pnpm dlx add-skill https://github.com/drshailesh88/integrated_content_OS/tree/HEAD/skills/cardiology/peer-review

Skill Files

Browse the full folder contents for peer-review.

Download Skill

Loading file tree…

skills/cardiology/peer-review/SKILL.md

Peer Review

Systematic framework for conducting rigorous peer review of scientific manuscripts and content.

Triggers

  • User asks to review a draft or manuscript
  • User wants feedback on scientific content
  • User needs quality assessment of an article
  • User is preparing content for publication
  • User wants pre-submission review

Review Stages

Stage 1: Initial Assessment

High-Level Questions:

  • Is the scope appropriate for the target venue?
  • Is the work novel and significant?
  • Are methods fundamentally sound?
  • Is the writing quality acceptable?

Decision Points:

  • Accept for detailed review
  • Reject (fundamental flaws)
  • Suggest alternative venue

Stage 2: Section-by-Section Review

Abstract

  • [ ] Accurately reflects content
  • [ ] Includes key findings with numbers
  • [ ] States conclusions supported by data
  • [ ] Within word limit
  • [ ] Structured appropriately (if required)

Introduction

  • [ ] Clear statement of problem/gap
  • [ ] Adequate background context
  • [ ] Logical flow to research question
  • [ ] Objectives clearly stated
  • [ ] Appropriate scope of literature cited

Methods

  • [ ] Study design appropriate for question
  • [ ] Population/sample clearly defined
  • [ ] Interventions/exposures described
  • [ ] Outcomes defined and measured appropriately
  • [ ] Statistical analysis plan adequate
  • [ ] Ethical approvals mentioned
  • [ ] Reproducible detail provided

Results

  • [ ] Presented in logical order
  • [ ] All methods have corresponding results
  • [ ] Appropriate statistics reported
  • [ ] Tables/figures clear and necessary
  • [ ] No interpretation (just findings)

Discussion

  • [ ] Key findings summarized
  • [ ] Results interpreted in context
  • [ ] Comparison with existing literature
  • [ ] Limitations acknowledged honestly
  • [ ] Implications stated appropriately
  • [ ] Conclusions supported by data

References

  • [ ] Adequate coverage of field
  • [ ] Recent and relevant citations
  • [ ] Proper formatting
  • [ ] No excessive self-citation

Stage 3: Methodological Rigor

For Clinical Studies:

  • [ ] CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA followed
  • [ ] Randomization appropriate (if RCT)
  • [ ] Blinding adequate
  • [ ] Sample size justified
  • [ ] ITT analysis used
  • [ ] Missing data handled

Statistical Assessment:

  • [ ] Tests appropriate for data
  • [ ] Assumptions verified
  • [ ] Effect sizes with CIs reported
  • [ ] Multiple testing addressed
  • [ ] P-values interpreted correctly

Stage 4: Reproducibility Check

  • [ ] Data availability stated
  • [ ] Code/analysis scripts available
  • [ ] Materials sufficiently described
  • [ ] Protocol registered (if applicable)
  • [ ] Reporting guidelines followed

Stage 5: Figure/Table Review

  • [ ] Necessary (not duplicating text)
  • [ ] Clear and interpretable
  • [ ] Properly labeled
  • [ ] Legends complete
  • [ ] Quality adequate for publication
  • [ ] No data integrity concerns

Stage 6: Ethics & Integrity

  • [ ] Appropriate ethics approval
  • [ ] Informed consent obtained
  • [ ] Conflicts of interest disclosed
  • [ ] Funding sources declared
  • [ ] No plagiarism concerns
  • [ ] Data appear genuine

Stage 7: Writing Quality

  • [ ] Clear and concise
  • [ ] Logical organization
  • [ ] Appropriate terminology
  • [ ] Grammar and spelling correct
  • [ ] Accessible to target audience

Review Report Structure

Summary Statement (1-2 paragraphs)

  • Brief description of study
  • Main strengths
  • Main weaknesses
  • Overall recommendation

Major Comments

Critical issues that must be addressed:

  • Methodological flaws
  • Unsupported conclusions
  • Missing essential information
  • Statistical errors

Minor Comments

Improvements for clarity/completeness:

  • Presentation issues
  • Additional analyses suggested
  • Clarifications needed
  • Minor errors

Questions for Authors

Specific clarifications required:

  • Ambiguous methods
  • Unclear results
  • Missing details

Recommendation Categories

| Recommendation | Meaning | |----------------|---------| | Accept | Ready for publication | | Minor revision | Small changes, no re-review | | Major revision | Significant changes, re-review needed | | Reject and resubmit | Fundamental issues, new submission | | Reject | Not suitable, not salvageable |

Discipline-Specific Guidelines

Cardiology/Medical

  • Check CONSORT for trials
  • Verify endpoint definitions match guidelines
  • Assess clinical vs statistical significance
  • Review NNT/NNH calculations
  • Check for appropriate comparators

Constructive Feedback Principles

  1. Be specific - Cite line numbers, quote text
  2. Be constructive - Suggest solutions, not just problems
  3. Be proportionate - Major issues get major attention
  4. Be consistent - Apply same standards throughout
  5. Be respectful - Critique work, not authors
  6. Be balanced - Acknowledge strengths too