What problem does it solve? Authors submitting to high-impact journals often cannot anticipate how referees will judge novelty, significance, and technical soundness before submission. This Skill simulates a Nature-style pre-submission review from the referee perspective, surfacing unsupported claims, technical failings, and readability barriers while there is still time to fix them. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Three Reviewer Reports Plus Synthesis: Produces three peer-review style reports differing only in emphasis (technical soundness, originality/significance, interdisciplinary readership) plus a cross-review synthesis that flags consensus issues only when at least two reviewers raise them. - Evidence-Anchored Concerns: Every substantive concern carries a stable ID, a claim pointer, an evidence pointer, and a resolution test, with explicit markers like "Not assessable from provided material" instead of invented details. - Domain-Specific Gates: Applies claim-dependent stress tests for chemistry, engineering, materials, atmospheric science, climate ecology, hydrology, and remote sensing manuscripts. - Use Case: Before submitting a manuscript, paste the abstract, introduction, and figure legends and ask for a Nature reviewer assessment; receive three reports identifying the technical failings most likely to block the authors' case. ## Quick Start Use the nature-reviewer skill to review my attached manuscript draft and figure legends like a Nature referee, returning three reviewer reports and a cross-review synthesis.
