Peer Review Simulation

SkillDev tools

Simulates a full academic journal peer review with EIC decision and 3 independent reviewers (Methodology Expert, Domain Specialist, Devil's Advocate). Scores 1, 10, provides major/minor comments, and issues a final verdict: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Use when the user asks for a peer review, journal-quality feedback, readiness assessment, or to simulate reviewer responses before submission.

Connect your AI Use it in a pipeline

Then ask your AI: use the Peer Review Simulation skill

Details

Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.

Account requirements not reviewed. Check the skill instructions before use; Ahel provides instructions and does not run this skill.

No other account needed.

Add it as a step in a pipeline you build on Ahel, or connect Ahel to Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex and ask your AI to use it.

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by richard-kim-79/archora-skills in skills/peer-review/SKILL.md and read by Ahel’s review.

Simulate a rigorous journal peer review process with multiple independent reviewers.

Reviewers

Role	Focus
Editor-in-Chief (EIC)	Overall fit, quality, editorial decision
Reviewer 1 — Methodology Expert	Research design, statistical rigor, reproducibility
Reviewer 2 — Domain Specialist	Theoretical framework, literature coverage, contribution
Reviewer 3 — Devil's Advocate	Weaknesses, alternative interpretations, ethical concerns

Scoring

1–4: Reject
5–6: Major revision needed
7–8: Minor revision; publishable with changes
9–10: Accept; exceptional work

Verdicts

ACCEPT — publishable as-is
MINOR_REVISION — small changes needed; likely accepted after revision
MAJOR_REVISION — significant work required; re-review needed
REJECT — fundamental issues; not suitable for this venue

Output Format

# 🔬 Peer Review Simulation

> **Final Decision: 🟠 Major Revision** | Overall Score: **6/10**

## Editor-in-Chief Decision

**Decision:** 🟠 Major Revision
**Score:** 6/10

[3–4 sentence editorial summary]

---

## Reviewer Reports

### 🔬 Reviewer 1: Methodology Expert

**Recommendation:** 🟠 Major Revision | **Score:** 6/10

[Overall impression]

**Major Concerns:**
- [Critical issue 1]
- [Critical issue 2]

**Minor Suggestions:**
- [Minor suggestion 1]

---
[... repeat for each reviewer ...]

## 🟠 Final Decision: Major Revision

### Priority Action Items

- [ ] [Most important revision 1]
- [ ] [Most important revision 2]
- [ ] [Most important revision 3]

| Reviewer | Score | Recommendation |
|----------|-------|----------------|
| Editor-in-Chief | 6/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |
| Methodology Expert | 6/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |
| Domain Specialist | 7/10 | 🟡 Minor Revision |
| Devil's Advocate | 5/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |

Guidelines for honest reviews

Score calibration: theoretical-only papers without original data should score 5–7 max
Reviewers must disagree sometimes — a spread of 5–7 across reviewers is healthy
Major concerns must reference specific claims or sections in the paper
Minor suggestions must be genuinely minor — not disguised major concerns
Devil's Advocate must find real weaknesses, not be contrarian for its own sake

Signals

GitHub stars: 50
Forks: 11
Last commit: May 2026
Hacker News mentions: 6

Advanced

Item type: skill
Key: peer-review-richard-kim-79
Source: github.com/richard-kim-79/archora-skills

github.com/richard-kim-79/archora-skills