| name | research-peer-review |
| description | Use this skill when the user wants to rigorously audit a piece of research, a briefing, a report, or an argument before relying on it — phrases like "peer review this", "self-critique this", "audit my research", "red team this report", "fact-check this", "find the weak claims", "is this trustworthy", "grade this research", "what's wrong with this analysis", or "review my briefing for bias". Spawns the peer-reviewer agent to run a fact-check & hallucination audit, bias detection, completeness check, contradiction-handling check, and actionability review, then assign a reliability grade. This is STORM Phase 4 standalone.
|
| version | 1.0.0 |
| user-invocable | true |
Research Peer Review — Audit Before You Rely
Every confident research output hides weak claims, quiet biases, and missing angles. STORM's own
documented weakness is that it doesn't self-critique — so source bias and fact misassociation
(a real source bolted to a claim it doesn't actually make) slip through. This skill is the fix,
usable on any research artifact, not just STORM output. Real peer review takes months; this
runs an honest, adversarial version in minutes.
What It Checks
- Fact-check & hallucination audit — unsupported, exaggerated, or fabricated claims;
citations that don't support what they're attached to; spot-checked against live sources.
- Bias detection — over-/under-represented views; default tilt toward mainstream/academic framing.
- Completeness — missing angles, stakeholders, counterexamples, recent developments.
- Contradiction handling — was dissent represented fairly, or quietly buried? Are reliability
ratings honest?
- Actionability & clarity — are conclusions specific and justified, or vague and overstated?
Output: a dimension-by-dimension assessment, a ranked list of required fixes, and an overall
reliability grade (A–F).
Workflow
Step 1 — Locate the Artifact
Identify what to review:
- STORM briefing:
.storm/{slug}/briefing.md (with its perspective files and contradiction
map as supporting evidence).
- A document/report: the user names a path or pastes the content.
- An argument in the conversation: the claims are already in context.
Establish a topic label and, for file-based runs, the workspace .storm/{slug}/ for the output.
If the target is ambiguous, ask one question to pin it down.
Step 2 — Spawn the Peer Reviewer
Launch the peer-reviewer agent with one Task call:
"Topic: {topic}. Review {artifact path OR pasted content} across all five dimensions.
Supporting evidence (if present): {perspective files, contradiction map}. Spot-check the
highest-stakes claims with WebSearch/WebFetch before flagging. Write
.storm/{slug}/peer-review.md with a reliability grade and ranked required fixes."
For pasted content with no workspace, instruct the agent to return the review inline.
Step 3 — Present the Verdict
Peer Review — {topic}
=====================
Grade: {A–F} | Reliability: {High/Medium/Low}
Verdict: {would you trust this to make a real decision? why}
Required fixes (ranked)
1. {must-fix — what's wrong, how to fix}
2. {…}
Top factual flags
• ⚠ {claim} — {issue, spot-check result}
Full review: .storm/{slug}/peer-review.md
Step 4 — Offer to Act on It
If reviewing a STORM briefing graded C or below (or with high-severity factual flags), offer a
revision pass: feed the review back to the synthesizer to fix the ranked issues, then re-review.
For external documents, offer to draft the fixes or hand the reviewer's notes back to the user.
Notes
- Specific, named flags only. "Some claims are weak" is noise; the reviewer quotes the claim,
locates it, and states the problem — and spot-checks the important ones rather than just
suspecting.
- Honest grading. The reviewer does not default to a pass. If the artifact would mislead a
decision-maker, it says so and grades down.
- This skill audits and recommends; it does not silently rewrite the source. Fixes are applied
only on a follow-up the user approves.
