AI Blocks · All skills by job · Minds · Mini tools · How it works · From a source · Apps

Check a paper's claims and write a fair peer review

Give it the manuscript. Get a claim check, a methods review and a fair, kind peer review.

Check a paper's claims and write a fair peer review is a free AI workflow for the job "Research a topic properly". It guides your AI through several skills in order, passing each step's output to the next.

Free · No account · Made by AI Blocks · Level: advanced · Thinking: high

What it does

Peer review is done at night, unpaid, and it shows. Reviews repeat the abstract, miss the claim the results do not support, and come in two tones: vague praise or wounding. Authors cannot tell what to fix, editors cannot tell what matters, and the paper's weakest claim survives. This workflow reviews in four passes. The first checks every claim in the abstract and discussion against the paper's own results and methods, and flags the ones that go further than the data. The second reviews the work as a scholar would: design, analysis, novelty, the literature it ignores, the writing. The third drafts the review in the standard shape: a summary, major points, minor points, a recommendation. The fourth rewrites the comments to be specific and kind, so an author knows exactly what to do and does not spend the evening hurt.

You give it

The manuscript, including figures and tables as text
The journal's review form or criteria, if there is one (optional)
Your field and what you can and cannot judge

You get

A claim check: every claim against the results, with the ones that overreach flagged
A methods and writing review
A drafted peer review with summary, major and minor points and a recommendation
The review rewritten to be specific and kind

Use it when

An editor has sent you a manuscript and a deadline.
You want to catch the claim that overreaches, which is the one that gets quoted.
Your past reviews were called harsh or vague.

Steps

Study claim checker: Give it a study or claim. Get its biases, flaws, weak statistics and evidence grade, explained in plain words.
Scholarly work reviewer: Give it a paper or thesis. Get a fair review of what is strong, what is weak and what to fix next.
Manuscript peer review drafter: Give it a paper or proposal. Get a fair, evidence-based review with claim checks, method critique and revision steps.
Review comment humaniser: Give it a code review comment. Get a direct version that reads like a teammate wrote it.

How to use it

Download the handoff pack. It's a zip with HANDOFF.md and every skill file this workflow uses.
Give the folder to Claude (in Claude Code, or as files in a Claude Project) and say "Follow HANDOFF.md".
Paste the manuscript and the journal's criteria. It checks the claims and reviews the methods.
Read the draft review. Remove any point you cannot stand behind and add what you saw yourself.
Read the kind version once more and submit it.