Review existing R scripts for code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, and coding standards. Produce a separate report for each script, plus a severity-based summary of findings and the three most critical issues, without changing source files.
Run the R code review protocol on R scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, and professional standards. Produces a report without editing files. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants their existing R code evaluated or audited — not when they want new analysis written. Triggers include: "review my R script", "check my R code", "is my code replication-ready", "audit this R file", "does this code follow conventions", "will this reproduce", "check my analysis script", "code review", "review-r", or when the user has an existing .R file and wants quality feedback rather than new code.
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Run the comprehensive R code review protocol.
Identify scripts to review:
$ARGUMENTS is a specific .R filename: review that file only$ARGUMENTS is a name pattern (e.g., model_name): glob for matching .R files. If multiple matches, use AskUserQuestion:
$ARGUMENTS is all: review all R scripts in scripts/R/ and Figures/*/$ARGUMENTS is empty, glob for all .R files. If multiple found, use AskUserQuestion as above.For each script, launch the r-reviewer agent with instructions to:
rules/r-code-conventions.md for current standardsquality_reports/[script_name]_r_review.mdAfter all reviews complete, present a summary:
IMPORTANT: Do NOT edit any R source files. Only produce reports. Fixes are applied after user review.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Turn a broad research idea into clear, testable questions. Compare familiar and less conventional approaches, structure the selected question around its population and methods, and assess variables, feasibility, and potential theoretical contributions.
Helps build a research framework by comparing theories, mapping relationships between variables, and deriving testable hypotheses. Explores less conventional options, examines weaknesses and competing explanations, and produces diagrams with anticipated reviewer objections.
Clarify the philosophical assumptions behind a research project and check whether they fit the proposed methods. Get a reasoned research stance, draft proposal wording, and guidance for explaining how the researcher's background and values shape the study.
Plan and draft academic papers through specialized agent roles covering literature, arguments, citations, and review. Get chapter guidance, revision roadmaps, Traditional Chinese and English abstracts, and documents formatted as LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, or Markdown.
Turn a detailed outline into a philosophy or interdisciplinary manuscript. Draft chapters with repeated quality reviews, check terminology and arguments across sections, and prepare the manuscript, evaluation reports, abstract, and metadata for submission.
Simulate academic peer review through five reviewer roles tailored to the paper's field. Receive separate critiques, an editorial decision, and a prioritized revision roadmap, or check whether a revised manuscript addresses earlier comments.