Back to skills
SKILL.md
Bio Manuscript Refine
ASecurityRefinement loop for the bio-manuscript pipeline: three-reviewer iterative optimization (editor, computational, biological). Use when reviewing a manuscript plan, producing structured review comments, revising round by round, and tracking score and revision history toward a target journal.
- 8 stars
- 0 votes
- 0 copies
- 1 view
- Added September 12, 2026
Security analysis
100/100Pro scans all 2 files and shows the line behind each finding
npx -y skills add stanfish06/skillquarium --skill bio-manuscript-refine --agent claude-codeAre you the author of Bio Manuscript Refine?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/stanfish06-bio-manuscript-refine)---
name: bio-manuscript-refine
description: "Refinement loop for the bio-manuscript pipeline: three-reviewer iterative optimization (editor, computational, biological). Use when reviewing a manuscript plan, producing structured review comments, revising round by round, and tracking score and revision history toward a target journal."
---
# bio-manuscript-refine
**Refine loop: three-reviewer iterative refinement (三审稿人迭代优化)**
Run a reviewer-style refinement loop over the manuscript plan using three perspectives: editor, computational reviewer, and biological reviewer.
## Purpose
1. Review the current manuscript plan
2. Produce structured review comments
3. Revise the proposal round by round
4. Track score history and revision history
## Input Format
```text
manuscript_plan: [full manuscript plan generated in previous steps]
target_journal: [target journal, default nat-communications]
num_rounds: [number of refine rounds, default 2]
```
## Workflow
### Round 0
- save the initial proposal snapshot
### Each review round
Produce three reviews:
1. **Editor**
- novelty
- feasibility
- journal fit
2. **Computational reviewer**
- method design
- technical rigor
- benchmark quality
- implementation feasibility
3. **Biological reviewer**
- biological significance
- analysis design
- dataset suitability
Then generate:
- a review summary
- a revision response
- a refined proposal
## Output Format
```markdown
# Refine Report
## Round 0
- initial proposal snapshot
## Round 1 Reviews
### Editor
- scores:
- key concerns:
### Computational Reviewer
- scores:
- key concerns:
### Biological Reviewer
- scores:
- key concerns:
## Round 1 Revision
- addressed concerns:
- remaining risks:
## Score History
| Round | Editor | Computational | Biological | Overall |
|-------|--------|---------------|------------|---------|
| 0 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
## Final Proposal Status
- ready for next phase / needs more revision
```
## Reviewer Criteria
### Editor
- novelty
- feasibility
- journal fit
### Computational reviewer
- algorithmic soundness
- method novelty
- benchmark rigor
- code feasibility
### Biological reviewer
- biological significance
- analysis relevance
- dataset realism
## Usage
```bash
/bio-manuscript-refine "manuscript_plan: [path to proposal] | target_journal: nat-communications | num_rounds: 2"
```
## Notes
1. Revision should update the proposal itself, not only append comments.
2. Keep a full history of each round.
3. Scores are guidance, not absolute truth; comments matter more than raw numbers.
Files in this skill
- SKILL.md
- agents/openai.yaml
Attribution
Comments
Loading comments…