nature-reviewer

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 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.
• Use the 12-axis technical concern taxonomy only as an internal coverage checklist; it supplements but never replaces the five source-grounded axes.
• 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.
• Give every substantive concern a stable ID, a faithful claim_pointer, and a verifiable evidence_pointer; mark missing locations instead of inventing them.
• Distinguish clearly between what is supported, what is weak, and what is not assessable from the provided material.
• When the manuscript has a clear technical domain, use claim-dependent domain gates as supporting checks, but keep the output inside the same 3-reviewer nature-reviewer structure.
• 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. Build an internal concern ledger using references/technical-concern-taxonomy.md; record applicability, claim/evidence pointers, severity, and the resolution test for each supported concern.
6. If the manuscript clearly falls into a technical domain covered by references/domain-specific-review-gates.md, load only the relevant domain section and use it to sharpen the technical-soundness critique.
7. Generate Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, and Reviewer 3 using shared facts but different emphasis. Reuse ledger issue keys internally so repeated concerns can be measured and cross-referenced.
8. Generate a Cross-review synthesis that captures consensus and weighting differences. Label an issue as consensus only when at least two reviewer reports raise the same underlying concern.
9. Run QA for evidence anchoring, overlap, 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:

For each substantive concern:
- Concern ID: R1-M1
- Axis:
- Claim pointer:
- Evidence pointer:
- Concern and resolution test:

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

File	Open when
references/source-basis.md	You need source provenance, local rule summaries, or source-vs-implementation boundaries
references/reviewer-workflow.md	You need the invocation order, fact-base extraction flow, or synthesis rules
references/review-axes.md	You need the evaluation axes or reviewer weighting logic
references/technical-concern-taxonomy.md	You need the internal 12-axis coverage check, concern ledger, or claim/evidence-pointer rules
references/domain-specific-review-gates.md	The manuscript has clear chemistry, engineering, materials, atmospheric, climate-ecology, hydrology, or remote-sensing evidence chains
references/report-structure.md	You need the default output contract or section anatomy
references/role-boundaries.md	You need constraints on reviewer differences and editor-versus-reviewer boundaries
references/qa-checklist.md	You 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
4. domain-specific supporting gates in references/domain-specific-review-gates.md

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

---

nature-reviewer 技能

English

nature-reviewer 用于从审稿人视角模拟 Nature 风格的预投稿评审，帮助作者在投稿前发现 novelty、significance、technical soundness 和读者价值上的风险。

适合用它做什么

• 对手稿、摘要、图表或结果故事线做投稿前压力测试。
• 按 Nature 官方审稿维度评估 originality、scientific importance、interdisciplinary readership、technical soundness 和 readability。
• 生成三份重点不同的 reviewer reports 和一份 cross-review synthesis。
• 标记无支撑声称、技术缺陷、证据链断点和非专业读者理解障碍。
• 用内部 12 轴技术清单检查覆盖范围，并为每条实质性意见绑定 claim pointer 和可核验的证据位置。
• 对三份报告做重复度检查；只有至少两位 reviewer 提出同一问题时才列为共识。
• 判断哪些读者会关心这项工作，以及为什么。

典型请求

• “像 Nature reviewer 一样审这篇 introduction 和 Figure 1。”
• “投稿前帮我找最可能被审稿人攻击的技术问题。”
• “给我三份 reviewer reports 和一个综合判断，不要写 rebuttal。”

你需要提供

• 手稿全文、摘要、关键章节、图表、图注或作者说明。
• 目标期刊、学科领域和你最担心的审稿风险。
• 已有补充实验或不能新增实验的限制。

产出

• 三份 peer-review style reports。
• Cross-review synthesis：共识问题、分歧重点和编辑层风险。
• 带稳定编号、claim pointer、evidence pointer 和解决判据的可追溯审稿意见。
• 必须补强的实验、分析、叙事或图表证据清单。
• 对无证据判断的明确标记。

边界

• 不会虚构具体审稿人身份、专业人设或编辑决定。
• 只基于用户提供材料和技能内官方审稿规则做保守模拟。
• 如果目标是写返修回复，优先使用 nature-response。

相关技能

• nature-response：把真实审稿意见转成回复包。
• nature-writing：根据评审风险重建手稿叙事。
• nature-statistics：深入审查统计设计和报告。