Loading the registry…
Review and (on approval) fix an academic manuscript draft against PLOS ONE's submission guidelines. Use this whenever the user wants to check, audit, prepare, proofread for formatting, or fix a paper draft for submission to PLOS ONE (or any PLOS journal) — including LaTeX (.tex) and Markdown (.md) drafts. Covers the seven publication criteria, manuscript structure, title and abstract limits, style/units/nomenclature, figure and table specifications, Vancouver/ICMJE references, and the required statements (data availability, financial disclosure, competing interests, ethics, reporting guidelines). Trigger even when the user does not name the skill explicitly — e.g. "is my manuscript ready for PLOS", "check my paper's formatting before I submit", "review draft.tex for PLOS ONE", or "I'm submitting to a PLOS journal". This is an UNOFFICIAL skill based on the public PLOS ONE guidelines, not affiliated with or endorsed by PLOS.
Claude Skills are markdown + scripts loaded into Claude Code; scanned with the same pipeline.
We found this by crawling public sources and nobody has attested to it. That is how most of the registry gets here, and it is not a mark against the artifact — it only means no authenticated act of publication is on record. An artifact can be the vendor's own and still appear here.
Claude Skills install to a single target, no runtime picker.
nerlo install -- 'matteospanio/plos-one-skill (plos-one-review)'
Manual alternative: copy the skill folder into ~/.claude/skills/ so Claude Code loads it on next launch.
cp -r -- 'matteospanio/plos-one-skill (plos-one-review)' ~/.claude/skills/
Install respects the composite badge: Clean proceeds, Caution prompts for confirmation, and Flagged is refused. Write operations require an API token.
4 of 11 scanners examined this package. The rest do not apply to it — language, ecosystem and packaging decide which analyzers can say anything, and a scanner that cannot examine an artifact reports nothing rather than passing it.
v2.0.11
6 findings · 7.3s
v0.3.74
1 finding · 0.8s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 2.9s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 2.9s
v1.4.0
None of the entry points this scanner reads were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.2s
vv0.3.2
No Go packages were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.1s
v0.1.0
This scanner found nothing in this artifact that it assesses. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 1.0s
v0.71.0
No dependency manifest or lockfile was found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.2s
v2.3.8
No dependency manifest or lockfile was found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.2s
v0.71.0
No container image was published for this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.0s
vv1.6.0
No Go modules were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.1s
1 scan on record. Every scan's full results are retained immutably for 24 months.
| Completed | Composite | Change | Scanners | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2026 | Caution94 | — | agentshield ·n/a: not applicablecisco-skill-scanner: completeagent-audit-kit: completenerlo-behavioral: completenerlo-install-instruction: completecapslock ·n/a: not applicablenerlo-multi-source ·n/a: not applicabletrivy ·n/a: not applicableosv-scanner ·n/a: not applicabletrivy_image ·n/a: not applicablegovulncheck ·n/a: not applicable | completed |
Findings in files this artifact installs stand as reported; a model re-read the rest and said which ones it believes are false positives. This is a second opinion published beside the evidence, not a correction to it: the per-scanner reports above are unchanged, every dismissed finding is still listed there at its original severity, and the score and the Caution badge are computed from those raw severities alone. Nothing below moved them.
This review has not run for this scan yet. It runs once per scan, in the background, and is kept; it appears here when it has. Until then all 7 findings above stand exactly as their scanners reported them, at full severity.