Loading...
Loading...
Found 10 Skills
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
Evaluate and score film and television scripts from three dimensions: ideological value, artistic merit, and viewability. Suitable for quality assessment during script development, determining revision directions, and pre-project approval review.
Novel Chapter Review - Triggered when proofreading, reviewing, or evaluating the quality of novel chapters is required. Keywords: review, proofread, manuscript evaluation, inspection, quality assessment.
Critiques ML conference papers with reviewer-style feedback. Use when users want to anticipate reviewer concerns, identify weaknesses, check claim-evidence gaps, or find missing citations.
Interact with local Chrome browser session (only on explicit user approval after being asked to inspect, debug, or interact with a page open in Chrome)
Minimal Chrome DevTools Protocol tools for browser automation and scraping. Use when you need to start Chrome, navigate pages, execute JavaScript, take screenshots, or interactively pick DOM elements.
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.
Own assessment-only manuscript deliverables without rewriting: full scientific review, scoring, reviewer reports, issue diagnosis, AC/meta-review, readiness judgment, writing/format review, and cross-version comparison. Use for full review, scientific review, do not rewrite, assessment-only, paper review, score drift, moving-target review, 完整审稿, 不要改写, 模拟审稿, 论文评分, 版本对比, 复审一致性, 写作评审, LaTeX检查. Requests for revised or polished prose, including rewrite based on reviews with no new review, belong to ccf-paper-writer; rebuttals belong to ccf-rebuttal-writer; visual/table styling belongs to ccf-visual-composer.
Use when reviewing academic papers, proposals, experiments, claims, related work, novelty, methodology, or manuscripts as a severe but fair peer reviewer before submission.
You must use this when critiquing academic manuscripts, evaluating methodological rigor, or providing structured reviewer feedback.