/inno-paper-reviewer

id: inno-paper-reviewer
name: inno-paper-reviewer
version: 1.0.0
description: |-
  Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation.
stages: ["publication"]
tools: ["read_file", "search_project", "write_file"]
summary: |-
  Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive...
primaryIntent: evaluation
intents: ["evaluation", "writing"]
capabilities: ["evaluation-benchmarking"]
domains: ["general"]
keywords: ["inno-paper-reviewer", "paper review", "evaluation-benchmarking", "inno", "paper", "reviewer", "structured", "manuscript", "grant", "review", "checklist", "based"]
source: builtin
status: verified
upstream:
  repo: dr-claw
  path: skills/inno-paper-reviewer
  revision: 8322dc4ef575affaa374aa7922c0a0971c6db7d7
resourceFlags:
  hasReferences: true
  hasScripts: false
  hasTemplates: false
  hasAssets: false
  referenceCount: 2
  scriptCount: 0
  templateCount: 0
  assetCount: 0
  optionalScripts: false

inno-paper-reviewer

Canonical Summary

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive...

Trigger Rules

Use this skill when the user request matches its research workflow scope. Prefer the bundled resources instead of recreating templates or reference material. Keep outputs traceable to project files, citations, scripts, or upstream evidence.

Resource Use Rules

• Read from `references/` only when the current task needs the extra detail.

Execution Contract

• Resolve every relative path from this skill directory first.
• Prefer inspection before mutation when invoking bundled scripts.
• If a required runtime, CLI, credential, or API is unavailable, explain the blocker and continue with the best manual fallback instead of silently skipping the step.
• Do not write generated artifacts back into the skill directory; save them inside the active project workspace.

Upstream Instructions

Scientific Critical Evaluation and Peer Review

Overview

Peer review is a systematic process for evaluating scientific manuscripts. Assess methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards. Apply this skill for manuscript and grant review across disciplines with constructive, rigorous evaluation.

When to Use This Skill

This skill should be used when:

• Conducting peer review of scientific manuscripts for journals
• Evaluating grant proposals and research applications
• Assessing methodology and experimental design rigor
• Reviewing statistical analyses and reporting standards
• Evaluating reproducibility and data availability
• Checking compliance with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA)
• Providing constructive feedback on scientific writing

Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics

**When creating documents with this skill, always consider adding scientific diagrams and schematics to enhance visual communication.**

If your document does not already contain schematics or diagrams:

• Use the **scientific-schematics** skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams
• Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language
• Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic

**For new documents:** Scientific schematics should be generated by default to visually represent key concepts, workflows, architectures, or relationships described in the text.

**How to generate schematics:**

python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png

The AI will automatically:

• Create publication-quality images with proper formatting
• Review and refine through multiple iterations
• Ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly, high contrast)
• Save outputs in the figures/ directory

**When to add schematics:**

• Peer review workflow diagrams
• Evaluation criteria decision trees
• Review process flowcharts
• Methodology assessment frameworks
• Quality assessment visualizations
• Reporting guidelines compliance diagrams
• Any complex concept that benefits from visualization

For detailed guidance on creating schematics, refer to the scientific-schematics skill documentation.

---

Peer Review Workflow

Conduct peer review systematically through the following stages, adapting depth and focus based on the manuscript type and discipline.

Stage 1: Initial Assessment

Begin with a high-level evaluation to determine the manuscript's scope, novelty, and overall quality.

**Key Questions:**

• What is the central research question or hypothesis?
• What are the main findings and conclusions?
• Is the work scientifically sound and significant?
• Is the work appropriate for the intended venue?
• Are there any immediate major flaws that would preclude publication?

**Output:** Brief summary (2-3 sentences) capturing the manuscript's essence and initial impression.

Stage 2: Detailed Section-by-Section Review

Conduct a thorough evaluation of each manuscript section, documenting specific concerns and strengths.

Abstract and Title

• **Accuracy:** Does the abstract accurately reflect the study's content and conclusions?
• **Clarity:** Is the title specific, accurate, and informative?
• **Completeness:** Are key findings and methods summarized appropriately?
• **Accessibility:** Is the abstract comprehensible to a broad scientific audience?

Introduction

• **Context:** Is the background information adequate and current?
• **Rationale:** Is the research question clearly motivated and justified?
• **Novelty:** Is the work's originality and significance clearly articulated?
• **Literature:** Are relevant prior studies appropriately cited?
• **Objectives:** Ar