Agent skill · research science · aiskillstore
nature-reviewer
Simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment from the referee perspective rather than an author rebuttal. Use when the user wants a pre-submission review, reviewer report, peer-review style critique, novelty/significance/technical soundness assessment, reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, 审稿人视角评估, 预审稿意见, or Nature reviewer report. Return 3 reviewer reports plus a cross-review synthesis, grounded only in the local Nature reviewer source basis. Also trigger on general pre-submission review requests during academic writing even without the word "Nature", such as getting a mock peer review for any journal, critiquing a draft as a reviewer would, assessing novelty/rigor before submission, and Chinese phrasings like 审稿人视角、模拟审稿、预审、帮我审一下论文、投稿前自审、审稿意见模拟、找论文问题.
Why this skill is useful
Provides a structured peer-review assessment framework that the AI wouldn't reliably generate on its own.
What it needs
About 3k tokens when loaded. Last updated 2026-08-07. 405 stars on the source repository.
What this skill does
Nature Reviewer Assessment Skill Use this skill to simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment package from the referee side. This skill is for reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, not for drafting the authors' response. If the user wants rebuttal writing, route to nature-response. Default stance Ground the review only in the local source basis plus manuscript facts supplied by the user. Evaluate the manuscript against source-grounded axes: originality, scientific importance, interdisciplinary readership, technical soundness, and readability for nonspecialists. Return exactly 3 reviewer reports + 1 cross-review synthesis unless the user explicitly asks for another structure. The three reviewers may differ only in emphasis; do not invent reviewer identities, specialties, institutions, or biographies. Identify who would be interested in the results and why. Identify technical failings that must be addressed before the authors' case is established. Distinguish clearly between what is supported, what is weak, and what is not assessable from the provided material. Do not claim the editor's final decision or certainty about fit to Nature. Accepted inputs The skill may receive: full manuscript draft abstract, summary paragraph, or cover-summary style text introduction, results, discussion, or methods excerpts figure legends, selected figures, or result notes author notes in Chinese or English describing the claimed contribution pre-submission positioning notes If the provided material is partial, perform a bounded review and mark the assessment boundary explicitly. Workflow 1. Identify the input scope and whether the job is a reviewer-style assessment rather than rebuttal drafting. 2. Extract a shared manuscript fact base: main claim, visible evidence, claimed significance, likely readership, and visible limitations. 3. Check readiness and label missing evidence or missing sections instead of inventing them. 4. Assess the manuscript using the source-grounded axes. 5. …
How to use it
Reference it in AdaL, Claude Code, Cursor or any coding agent — nothing to install:
@skills aiskillstore/nature-reviewer