nature-reviewer

1# Nature Reviewer Assessment Skill
2 
3Use this skill to simulate a `Nature`-style reviewer assessment package from the referee
4side.
5 
6This skill is for reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, not for drafting the authors'
7response. If the user wants rebuttal writing, route to `nature-response`.
8 
9## Default stance
10 
11- Ground the review only in the local source basis plus manuscript facts supplied by the user.
12- Evaluate the manuscript against source-grounded axes: `originality`, `scientific importance`, `interdisciplinary readership`, `technical soundness`, and `readability for nonspecialists`.
13- Use the 12-axis technical concern taxonomy only as an internal coverage checklist; it supplements but never replaces the five source-grounded axes.
14- Return exactly `3 mutually blind reviewer reports + 1 post-review synthesis` unless the user explicitly asks for another structure.
15- Give every reviewer only the same immutable manuscript/source packet, the same journal criteria, and that reviewer's preassigned emphasis. Never provide another review, a shared concern ledger, a draft synthesis, or hints about what another reviewer noticed.
16- Run each reviewer in a genuinely separate context, subagent, process, or invocation. If the environment cannot isolate contexts, generate one reviewer report per invocation or explicitly state that mutual blindness cannot be guaranteed; never present shared-context drafting as independent peer review.
17…