ma-peer-review

Validate meta-analysis manuscripts for rigor, reproducibility, and reporting compliance.

115|45|Updated Feb 5, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/htlin222/meta-pipe --skill ma-peer-review
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: ma-peer-review
Source: https://github.com/htlin222/meta-pipe/tree/main/ma-peer-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/htlin222/meta-pipe --skill ma-peer-review

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes scripts (resource) and references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

Act as Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 for a meta-analysis manuscript, checking rigor, reproducibility, and reporting compliance. Use when validating the final paper before submission.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Dual reviewer outputs: reviewer1.md and reviewer2.md, plus consolidated action-items and grade summaries.
  • Outputs include: 08_reviews/reviewer1.md, 08_reviews/reviewer2.md, 08_reviews/action-items.md, 08_reviews/grade_summary.csv, 08_reviews/grade_summary.md, 08_reviews/analysis_stats.json (from Stage 06), 08_reviews/grade_suggestions.csv, 08_reviews/grade_suggestions.md, 08_reviews/grade_detailed.md, and 03_screening/round-01/quality_rob2.csv, 03_screening/round-01/rob2_assessment.md, 03_screening/round-01/quality_robins_i.csv, 03_screening/round-01/robins_i_assessment.md.
  • Validation checks for protocol adherence, risk of bias, reporting completeness, and reproducibility.

Quick Start

Open the ma-peer-review project within the tooling environment and run the end-to-end review workflow to generate reviewer artifacts for validation.

Frequently Asked Questions about ma-peer-review

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I perform a structured dual-review for meta-analysis reproducibility?▼

A structured dual-review for meta-analysis reproducibility uses two independent reviewer outputs to validate manuscript rigor, producing consolidated action-items and GRADE summaries to ensure reporting compliance.

What is the best way to check PRISMA and GRADE compliance before manuscript submission?▼

Checking PRISMA and GRADE compliance involves validating protocol adherence and risk of bias assessments to generate a PRISMA-ready output and a GRADE/SoF starter for submission readiness.

How do I validate RoB 2 and ROBINS-I assessments in a meta-analysis manuscript?▼

Validating RoB 2 and ROBINS-I assessments requires checking screening artifacts and risk of bias evaluations to confirm manuscript rigor and verify reviewer notes across dual-review outputs.

Can I generate reviewer notes and GRADE summaries from my existing meta-analysis artifacts?▼

You can generate dual reviewer notes, an action-items log, and GRADE summaries from existing meta-analysis artifacts like protocol drafts and screening artifacts during an end-to-end validation workflow.

What limitations exist when automating peer-review for meta-analysis reporting?▼

Automating peer-review for meta-analysis reporting cannot fully replace human judgment, requiring complete protocol and screening artifacts to properly validate rigor, reproducibility, and risk of bias assessments.