franklee16

Scholarpeer Econ — AI skill for Claude Code

AI community

Multi-agent peer review simulation for finance and economics manuscripts.

How to install Scholarpeer Econ

This entry records only its repository, not the path inside it, so there is no exact command to give. Open franklee16/scholarpeer-econ and copy the folder into ~/.claude/skills/, or the file into ~/.claude/agents/.

What Scholarpeer Econ does

Multi-agent peer review simulation for finance and economics manuscripts. Dispatches specialized AI reviewers (econometrician, domain expert, methodologist) to evaluate papers and generates consensus reports.

Alternatives in AI

  • Codex Plugin — 's /codex:adversarial-review command 9.6k ★
  • Fast Agent — Code, Build and Evaluate agents - excellent Model and Skills/MCP/ACP Support 3.7k ★
  • Define — Definition phase - Clarify and scope problems with multi-AI consensus 2.8k ★

README

ScholarPeer-Econ

**Multi-Agent Peer Review Simulation for Finance and Economics Manuscripts**

Overview

ScholarPeer-Econ simulates a journal peer review panel by dispatching multiple specialized AI reviewer agents in parallel. Each reviewer evaluates your manuscript from their expertise perspective, then a discussion phase synthesizes findings into a consensus report with actionable recommendations.

Installation

  1. Clone this repository into your Claude Code skills directory:

    cd ~/.claude/skills/
    git clone https://github.com/yourusername/scholarpeer-econ.git
  2. The skill will be automatically available in Claude Code.

Usage

In Claude Code, invoke the skill:

/scholarpeer-econ path/to/manuscript.docx

With journal targeting:

/scholarpeer-econ paper/main.tex --journal JF

How It Works

Reviewer Personas

Persona Focus Area
Econometrician Identification strategy, causality, specification, standard errors
Domain Expert Literature positioning, contribution, institutional context
Methodologist Data quality, measurement validity, replication potential

Process

  1. Phase 1: Setup — Read manuscript, select reviewer personas, load journal profile
  2. Phase 2: Independent Review — Dispatch 2-3 reviewers in parallel (blind to each other)
  3. Phase 3: Discussion — Identify disagreements, facilitate resolution
  4. Phase 4: Consensus Report — Synthesize into unified assessment with scores

Scoring

Overall score aligned with quality gate system:

  • ≥95: Ready for submission
  • 90-94: Minor revisions needed
  • 80-89: Major revisions needed
  • <80: Fundamental issues require rethinking

Output

Reports saved to `quality_reports/reviews/`:

  • Individual reviewer reports
  • Consensus report with actionable recommendations
  • Required revisions checklist

Supported Formats

  • .docx (Word documents)
  • .tex (LaTeX manuscrip