本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

remote-sensing-nature-reviewer

Simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment from the referee perspective rather than an author rebuttal. Use when the user wants a pre-submission review, reviewer report, peer-review style critique, novelty/significance/technical soundness assessment, reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, 审稿人视角评估, 预审稿意见, or Nature reviewer report. Return 3 reviewer reports plus a cross-review synthesis, grounded only in the local Nature reviewer source basis. Also trigger on general pre-submission review requests during academic writing even without the word "Nature", such as getting a mock peer review for any journal, critiquing a draft as a reviewer would, assessing novelty/rigor before submission, and Chinese phrasings like 审稿人视角、模拟审稿、预审、帮我审一下论文、投稿前自审、审稿意见模拟、找论文问题.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(9)

  • SKILL.md6.0 KB
  • references/editorial criteria and processes.md4.3 KB
  • references/qa-checklist.md1.8 KB
  • references/report-structure.md2.2 KB
  • references/review-axes.md3.2 KB
  • references/reviewer-workflow.md2.5 KB
  • references/role-boundaries.md2.5 KB
  • references/source-basis.md4.4 KB
  • USAGE.md1.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Nature Reviewer Assessment Skill

Use this skill to simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment package from the referee side.

This skill is for reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, not for drafting the authors' response. If the user wants rebuttal writing, route to remote-sensing-nature-response.

Default stance

  • Ground the review only in the local source basis plus manuscript facts supplied by the user.
  • Evaluate the manuscript against source-grounded axes: originality, scientific importance, interdisciplinary readership, technical soundness, and readability for nonspecialists.
  • Return exactly 3 reviewer reports + 1 cross-review synthesis unless the user explicitly asks for another structure.
  • The three reviewers may differ only in emphasis; do not invent reviewer identities, specialties, institutions, or biographies.
  • Identify who would be interested in the results and why.
  • Identify technical failings that must be addressed before the authors' case is established.
  • Distinguish clearly between what is supported, what is weak, and what is not assessable from the provided material.
  • Do not claim the editor's final decision or certainty about fit to Nature.

Accepted inputs

The skill may receive:

  • full manuscript draft
  • abstract, summary paragraph, or cover-summary style text
  • introduction, results, discussion, or methods excerpts
  • figure legends, selected figures, or result notes
  • author notes in Chinese or English describing the claimed contribution
  • pre-submission positioning notes

If the provided material is partial, perform a bounded review and mark the assessment boundary explicitly.

Workflow

  1. Identify the input scope and whether the job is a reviewer-style assessment rather than rebuttal drafting.
  2. Extract a shared manuscript fact base: main claim, visible evidence, claimed significance, likely readership, and visible limitations.
  3. Check readiness and label missing evidence or missing sections instead of inventing them.
  4. Assess the manuscript using the source-grounded axes.
  5. Generate Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, and Reviewer 3 using shared facts but different emphasis.
  6. Generate a Cross-review synthesis that captures consensus and weighting differences.
  7. Run QA for groundedness, coverage, role boundaries, and non-invention.

Output format

Unless the user asks for another format, return:

Review setup
- Input scope:
- Assessment boundary:
- Shared manuscript claim summary:
- Visible evidence base:
- Missing materials affecting confidence:

Reviewer 1
- Overall assessment:
- Who would be interested in the results, and why:
- Major strengths:
- Major concerns:
- Technical failings that need to be addressed before the case is established:
- Assessment against Nature-style criteria:
- Recommendation posture:

Reviewer 2
[Same structure]

Reviewer 3
[Same structure]

Cross-review synthesis
- Consensus strengths:
- Consensus technical risks:
- Where emphasis differs across reviewers:
- Broad-interest / significance readout:
- Most important issues to resolve before a strong Nature-style case is established:

Risk / unsupported claims
- [specific unsupported or not-assessable items]

Red lines

  • Do not invent reviewer identities, specialty roles, or selection history.
  • Do not invent experiments, validations, controls, citations, figure details, line numbers, or prior-work distinctions not present in the input.
  • Do not silently turn reviewer assessment into author rebuttal drafting.
  • Do not present the review as an editorial decision letter.
  • Do not state that the manuscript belongs in Nature as a settled fact.
  • Do not omit technical failings when the provided evidence does not establish the authors' case.

Related files

FileOpen when
references/source-basis.mdYou need source provenance, local rule summaries, or source-vs-implementation boundaries
references/reviewer-workflow.mdYou need the invocation order, fact-base extraction flow, or synthesis rules
references/review-axes.mdYou need the evaluation axes or reviewer weighting logic
references/report-structure.mdYou need the default output contract or section anatomy
references/role-boundaries.mdYou need constraints on reviewer differences and editor-versus-reviewer boundaries
references/qa-checklist.mdYou are finalizing an output and need groundedness / non-invention checks
[references/editorial criteria and processes.md](references/editorial criteria and processes.md)You need the primary local Nature source text

Source hierarchy

Use sources in this order:

  1. references/editorial criteria and processes.md
  2. manuscript facts supplied by the user
  3. conservative local implementation rules documented in references/source-basis.md

If a user asks for policy-level certainty beyond this local source, state the limit instead of improvising broader journal policy.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Remote-sensing literature search, citation verification, sensor/platform/dataset query strategy, citation file management (.ris/.bib/.enw conversion), and reference management (BibTeX, related articles, DOI/arXiv lookup) across CrossRef, arXiv, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Semantic Scholar, and domain web sources. Use when the user needs coordinated multi-step literature workflows for remote sensing, Earth observation, geospatial AI, GIScience, photogrammetry, SAR, hyperspectral imaging, LiDAR, satellite missions, benchmark datasets, land-cover mapping, change detection, object detection, segmentation, retrieval, or multimodal remote-sensing foundation models. Also trigger on general literature-search needs during academic writing even without the word "Nature", such as searching for papers/literature, doing a literature review, verifying a citation, converting citation files, and Chinese phrasings like 文献检索、查文献、找文献、 文献综述检索、查论文、引文核对、参考文献管理、文献去重.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

thislzm/SKILL82026年6月6日 更新

Submission-grade remote-sensing Nature/high-impact journal figure workflow for Python or R. Use whenever the user asks to create, revise, audit, or polish manuscript figures, multi-panel scientific plots, map-led composites, remote-sensing image plates, sensor/product workflow figures, validation/error/uncertainty panels, or journal-ready SVG/PDF/TIFF outputs, especially for Nature-family, Remote Sensing of Environment, ISPRS, IEEE TGRS, or other high-impact venues. Before plotting, define the figure's conclusion, evidence logic, export needs, and review risks. If the user has not chosen Python or R, ask "Python or R?" and stop. Use only the selected backend for figure generation, previewing, exporting, and QA. Supports matplotlib/seaborn and ggplot2/patchwork/ComplexHeatmap. Not for dashboards or Illustrator/Figma-first infographics. Also trigger on general academic-writing figure needs even without the word "Nature", such as making figures/plots for a paper, scientific/academic plotting, data visualization for a manuscript, and Chinese phrasings like 遥感论文配图、学术写作配图、科研绘图、科研作图、地图出图、论文图表、可视化.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

thislzm/SKILL82026年6月6日 更新

Build a complete but efficient Nature-style Chinese PPTX presentation from a remote-sensing, Earth-observation, geospatial AI, or broader scientific paper, preprint, PDF, article text, abstract, figure legends, or reading notes. Use this skill whenever the user asks to make slides/PPT/PPTX for journal club, group meeting, paper sharing, thesis seminar, lab meeting, department report, or academic presentation from a remote-sensing research paper. It identifies the paper type and argument, selects only the figures needed for the story, writes Chinese slide content and speaker notes, creates the actual .pptx deck, and runs an explicit self-review/corrective revision loop focused on figure quality, text overflow prevention, and non-template visual design before delivery. Also trigger on general academic-presentation requests even without the word "Nature", such as turning a paper into slides, building an academic talk deck, conference/defense presentations, and Chinese phrasings like 论文做PPT、遥感论文汇报、组会PPT、文献汇报、学术汇报、做幻灯片、讲paper、读书报告PPT.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

thislzm/SKILL82026年6月6日 更新

Polish, restructure, or translate academic prose into Nature-leaning English using writing-strategy principles, curated Nature/Nature Communications article patterns, and phrase-level support from Academic Phrasebank. Use whenever the user asks to polish a manuscript paragraph, abstract, introduction, results, discussion, conclusion, title, methods section, or Chinese academic draft for publication-quality English. Also covers LaTeX layout/typesetting (排版) fixes — loose or sparse pages, stranded section headings, figures that don't fill the page or split across pages, "Float too large", multi-panel figure arrangement, and Supplementary Information that looks empty — via references/latex-layout.md. Also trigger on general academic/scientific writing requests even without the word "Nature", including academic writing, scientific writing, SCI/paper writing, English manuscript polishing, language editing, proofreading, and Chinese phrasings such as 学术写作、科研写作、论文润色、写paper、SCI写作、英文论文润色、语言润色、润色、改写、学术英语、英文写作.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

thislzm/SKILL82026年6月6日 更新

Build full-paper Chinese-English side-by-side, figure/table-aware, source-grounded Markdown readers for journal or conference papers from PDF, DOI, arXiv, publisher HTML, or pasted text. Use whenever the user asks to translate or read a paper, make 中英文对照/原文对照/全文翻译解读, extract figures or tables into the right positions, preserve figure/table placement near relevant prose, or keep exact source anchors for every block. This skill must not degrade into a summary-only output unless the user explicitly asks for a summary. Also trigger on general paper-reading and translation requests even without the word "Nature", such as reading/translating an academic paper, literature reading, understanding a paper, and Chinese phrasings like 读论文、精读论文、论文翻译、文献翻译、文献阅读、学术阅读、帮我读这篇文章、翻译这篇paper.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

thislzm/SKILL82026年6月6日 更新

thislzm のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する