| name | nature-reviewer |
| description | Simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment for RL, MARL, LLM, and LLM Agent manuscripts. Use for pre-submission review, novelty assessment, technical soundness, reproducibility, benchmark fairness, safety, and reviewer-style critique. |
| version | 2.0.0-agent-rl |
AI/RL reviewer assessment
Default stance
Return exactly three reviewer reports plus a cross-review synthesis unless the user requests another format. Ground the review only in the manuscript or notes supplied by the user.
Review axes
- Big-question significance.
- Novelty relative to RL/MARL/LLM/Agent literature.
- Methodological soundness.
- Experimental rigor and baseline fairness.
- Reproducibility and artifact completeness.
- Generalization and robustness.
- Safety, ethics, misuse, benchmark contamination and compute cost.
- Writing clarity for a broad AI/science audience.
Field-specific checks
- RL: reward shaping, seed count, instability, evaluation protocol, offline/online leakage, sample efficiency.
- MARL: CTDE boundary, partner/opponent split, unknown teammates, non-stationarity, equilibrium or social dilemma framing.
- LLM: model version, training/evaluation data contamination, prompt sensitivity, statistical significance, baseline freshness.
- LLM Agent: tool schema, memory, environment, autonomy level, trajectory logging, failure cases, reproducibility of prompts and tool calls.
Output format
Review setup
- Input scope:
- Assessment boundary:
- Shared manuscript claim:
- Visible evidence:
- Missing materials:
Reviewer 1 — significance and framing
- Overall assessment:
- Major strengths:
- Major concerns:
- Required revisions:
Reviewer 2 — method and experiments
[Same structure]
Reviewer 3 — reproducibility and safety
[Same structure]
Cross-review synthesis
- Consensus strengths:
- Consensus risks:
- Highest-priority fixes:
- Nature-style readiness score:
Red lines
Do not invent reviewer identities, citations, experiments, decisions or confidential editorial processes. Do not say “accept” or “reject” as a final editorial decision; describe recommendation posture only.
