Skills › Scientific Agent Skills › peer-review › review_scaffold_template.md

review_scaffold_template.md

68 lines · skills/peer-review/assets/review_scaffold_template.md at 5f2bc03

1# Peer-review working draft — {{REVIEW_ID}}

3> Private working document. Human review, policy checks, and factual verification are required. Do not submit this scaffold with unresolved placeholders. Do not make or announce an editorial decision.

Peer-review working draft — {{REVIEW_ID}}

Private working document. Human review, policy checks, and factual verification are required. Do not submit this scaffold with unresolved placeholders. Do not make or announce an editorial decision.

Raw lines 1 to 4

5## Intake record

7- Reviewer capacity: `{{REVIEWER_CAPACITY}}`

8- Peer-review model: `{{PEER_REVIEW_MODEL}}`

9- Declared processing plan: `{{AI_PLAN}}`

10- Manuscript text is not embedded by the generator.

11- Reconfirm conflicts, competence limits, tool use, confidentiality, and deletion or retention obligations before submission.

13# Comments to authors

Intake record

Reviewer capacity: {{REVIEWER_CAPACITY}}
Peer-review model: {{PEER_REVIEW_MODEL}}
Declared processing plan: {{AI_PLAN}}
Manuscript text is not embedded by the generator.
Reconfirm conflicts, competence limits, tool use, confidentiality, and deletion or retention obligations before submission.

Comments to authors

Raw lines 5 to 14

15## Evidence-bounded summary

17[Write a neutral summary of the question, design, and principal claims. Do not invent findings or imply that unperformed analyses were run.]

Evidence-bounded summary

[Write a neutral summary of the question, design, and principal claims. Do not invent findings or imply that unperformed analyses were run.]

Raw lines 15 to 18

19## Strengths

21[Identify specific strengths supported by a manuscript location or supplied material.]

Strengths

[Identify specific strengths supported by a manuscript location or supplied material.]

Raw lines 19 to 22

23## Major comments

Major comments

Raw lines 23 to 24

25### Major comment M1

27- Location: [Section, page, line, figure, table, or claim ID]

28- Observation: [State what is reported, missing, inconsistent, or unsupported]

29- Evidence or criterion: [Cite manuscript evidence, a method principle, venue policy, or reporting item]

30- Why it matters: [Explain the consequence for validity, interpretation, reproducibility, ethics, or reporting]

31- Requested action: [Request clarification, correction, analysis, evidence, or a bounded revision]

Major comment M1

Location: [Section, page, line, figure, table, or claim ID]
Observation: [State what is reported, missing, inconsistent, or unsupported]
Evidence or criterion: [Cite manuscript evidence, a method principle, venue policy, or reporting item]
Why it matters: [Explain the consequence for validity, interpretation, reproducibility, ethics, or reporting]
Requested action: [Request clarification, correction, analysis, evidence, or a bounded revision]

Raw lines 25 to 32

33## Minor comments

Minor comments

Raw lines 33 to 34

35### Minor comment m1

37- Location: [Section, page, line, figure, table, or reference ID]

38- Observation: [State the local clarity, consistency, citation, figure, or reporting issue]

39- Evidence or criterion: [Identify the relevant evidence or criterion]

40- Why it matters: [Explain the reader-facing consequence]

41- Requested action: [Request a specific correction or clarification]

Minor comment m1

Location: [Section, page, line, figure, table, or reference ID]
Observation: [State the local clarity, consistency, citation, figure, or reporting issue]
Evidence or criterion: [Identify the relevant evidence or criterion]
Why it matters: [Explain the reader-facing consequence]
Requested action: [Request a specific correction or clarification]

Raw lines 35 to 42

43## Methods, statistics, and reproducibility

45[Summarize only assessed issues. Distinguish reporting gaps from design or analysis concerns and state where specialist review is needed.]

Methods, statistics, and reproducibility

[Summarize only assessed issues. Distinguish reporting gaps from design or analysis concerns and state where specialist review is needed.]

Raw lines 43 to 46

47## Ethics, transparency, figures, tables, and citations

49[Record specific, evidence-backed issues. Do not allege misconduct; route credible integrity concerns through the journal process.]

Ethics, transparency, figures, tables, and citations

[Record specific, evidence-backed issues. Do not allege misconduct; route credible integrity concerns through the journal process.]

Raw lines 47 to 50

51## Limitations of this review

53[State competence limits, unavailable materials, analyses not independently reproduced, and unresolved uncertainty.]

55# Confidential comments to editor

57> Keep this channel separate from comments to authors. Follow the venue policy. Do not place ordinary scientific criticism only here.

Limitations of this review

[State competence limits, unavailable materials, analyses not independently reproduced, and unresolved uncertainty.]

Confidential comments to editor

Keep this channel separate from comments to authors. Follow the venue policy. Do not place ordinary scientific criticism only here.

Raw lines 51 to 58

59## Reviewer disclosures

61- Conflicts and editor clearance: [State the disclosed status without unnecessary personal detail]

62- Competence limits or specialist review needed: [State areas]

63- Assistance or tools used and required disclosure: [State policy-compliant details]

64- Confidentiality or retention issue: [State any unresolved process concern]

Reviewer disclosures

Conflicts and editor clearance: [State the disclosed status without unnecessary personal detail]
Competence limits or specialist review needed: [State areas]
Assistance or tools used and required disclosure: [State policy-compliant details]
Confidentiality or retention issue: [State any unresolved process concern]

Raw lines 59 to 65

66## Editorial-process or integrity concerns

68[Describe only substantiated process, ethics, confidentiality, or integrity concerns and their evidence locations. Avoid accusations and avoid an editorial outcome.]

Editorial-process or integrity concerns

[Describe only substantiated process, ethics, confidentiality, or integrity concerns and their evidence locations. Avoid accusations and avoid an editorial outcome.]

Raw lines 66 to 68