# Simulate Nature-style peer review before submission

Researchers struggle to anticipate reviewer criticism before submitting to top journals like Nature. This skill reads your manuscript draft and produces a grounded, referee-perspective review package so you can strengthen your paper before submission.

## Install

```bash
npx skillstore add yuan1z0825/nature-reviewer
```

## Metadata

- - Slug: yuan1z0825-nature-reviewer
- - Version: 0.1.0
- - Author: Yuan1z0825
- - GitHub username: Yuan1z0825
- - License: MIT
- - Repository: https://github.com/Yuan1z0825/nature-skills/tree/main/skills/nature-reviewer
- - Ref: main
- - Supported tools: Claude, Codex, Claude Code
- - Risk level: safe
- - Quality score: 82
- - Quality tier: silver
- - Public page: https://skillstore.pages.dev/skills/yuan1z0825-nature-reviewer
- - Manifest: https://skillstore.pages.dev/api/skills/yuan1z0825-nature-reviewer/manifest

## Capabilities

- Reads manuscript drafts, abstracts, sections, figure legends, or author notes as reviewer input
- Evaluates manuscripts against Nature's five source-grounded axes: originality, scientific importance, interdisciplinary readership, technical soundness, and readability for nonspecialists
- Produces exactly 3 reviewer reports that differ only in emphasis, never inventing identities or specialties
- Generates a cross-review synthesis capturing consensus strengths, risks, and emphasis differences
- Identifies who would be interested in the results and the technical failings blocking the authors' case
- Flags unsupported claims and unassessable items with explicit boundary markers like AUTHOR\_INPUT\_NEEDED

## Use Cases

- Pre-submission Nature manuscript check: A researcher submits a full draft to stress-test it against Nature's editorial criteria before sending it to the journal.
- Mock peer review for any journal: An author wants a bounded, reviewer-style critique of a manuscript draft to identify weaknesses before formal submission.
- Broad-interest narrative testing: A researcher wants to check whether their manuscript communicates significance to a non-specialist interdisciplinary audience.

## Prompt Templates

### Full draft review

```
Please review the following manuscript draft from the Nature reviewer perspective. Evaluate it against the five source-grounded axes (originality, scientific importance, interdisciplinary readership, technical soundness, readability for nonspecialists). Return 3 reviewer reports plus a cross-review synthesis.
```

### Abstract-only quick check

```
Here is my abstract and main figures. Assess the novelty and broad-interest potential from a Nature reviewer standpoint. What are the likely major concerns if this were sent to peer review?
```

### Targeted technical soundness review

```
Review the methods and results sections of this manuscript. Identify technical failings that must be addressed before the authors' case for significance is established. Do not comment on editorial decision.
```

### Broad-interest readability audit

```
Evaluate whether this manuscript is readable for a nonspecialist interdisciplinary reader. Identify sections where background context is missing or where field-specific jargon blocks comprehension.
```

## Limitations

- Grounded only in the local editorial criteria source — cannot generalize to other journals' specific policies
- Cannot make or claim the editor's final acceptance decision
- Inventor reviewers differ only in emphasis; cannot simulate field-specific specialist critique beyond what source supports
- Does not write author rebuttals — route to a rebuttal skill for that task

## Best Practices

- Provide the full manuscript draft or as many complete sections as possible for the strongest review output
- Clearly state if the manuscript is partial so the skill can mark assessment boundaries instead of guessing
- Use the output to identify which technical failings to fix before submission, not as a final editorial verdict
- Review all three reports for emphasis differences to spot blind spots in your own framing

## Anti Patterns

- Do not use this skill to draft author rebuttals or response letters — route to a rebuttal skill instead
- Do not treat the reviewer reports as an editorial decision or accept/reject signal
- Do not ask the skill to invent specific reviewer identities, institutions, or specialist biographies
- Do not expect journal-policy certainty beyond what is in the local editorial criteria source

## Security Audit

- - Safe to publish: true
- - Audited at: 2026-06-24T06:08:56.842\+00:00
- - Summary: This is a pure text-based academic writing skill that simulates Nature-style peer review. All 176 'external\_commands' static findings are false positives caused by markdown inline code formatting \(backticks used to label section names and identifiers like \`Reviewer 1\`, \`Cross-review synthesis\`, \`originality\`, etc.\) — no shell or Ruby execution exists. The 10 'weak cryptographic algorithm' hits are false matches on fragments of academic prose in the editorial criteria document. The 4 'system reconnaissance' findings reference manuscript reading, not system probing. The single 'hardcoded URL' is a Nature editorial policy URL in the README. No executable code, scripts, network calls, or prompt injection attempts were found.

## Stats

- - Views: 0
- - Downloads: 5
- - Favorites: 0
- - Popularity score: 0