journal-reviewlisted

Drafts a referee report on someone else's manuscript for a journal editor — a recommendation, a summary of the claim and design, three to six major concerns that drive the decision, additional concerns, and a coherent revision plan, produced by five parallel adversarial finders (Breaker, Butcher, Shredder, Void, Situator), a Blue Team error filter, a Chief Reviewer synthesis, and a Tone Guard legal pass, with an optional confidential note to the editor. Use when the user has been asked to referee a manuscript for a journal. Self-audit of the user's own draft goes to paper-review-lite or presubmit, and writing an author-side response to reviewers goes to referee-response.
scdenney/open-science-skills · ★ 57 · Code & Development · score 74

Install: claude install-skill scdenney/open-science-skills

# Journal Article Peer Review ## Heritage and scope 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** — third-party referee work, not the author's own pre-submission audit. 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. ## Delegation gate 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. ## What this produces A markdown referee report: **Recommendation** (*Reject* / *Major Revision* / *Minor Revision* / *Accept with minor changes* / *Accept*), **Summary** (the claim and the design, not the critique), **Major Concerns** (3–6 numbered paragraphs, which determine the recommendation), **Additional Concerns** (3–8 shorter items that matter but do not drive the decision), and **Suggestions for Revision** (a cohere