review-paper

Manuscript Review

Produce a thorough, constructive review of an academic manuscript — the kind of report a top-journal referee would write.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to a paper (.tex, .pdf, or .qmd), or a filename in manuscripts/ or references/papers/.

Steps

1. Locate and read the manuscript. Check:

   • Direct path from $ARGUMENTS
   • manuscripts/$ARGUMENTS
   • references/papers/$ARGUMENTS
   • Glob for partial matches in manuscripts/ and references/papers/

2. Read the full paper end-to-end. For long PDFs, read in chunks (5 pages at a time).

3. Read references/domain-profile.md for field and top journals — use these to calibrate the referee perspective (see Principles).

4. Dispatch three reviewer agents in parallel via Task (one message, three Task calls — see below):

   • domain-reviewer — substantive correctness through 6 lenses (including design-specific diagnostic reporting)
   • adversarial-reviewer — hostile-referee attack on the paper
   • fresh-eyes-reviewer — first-time reader perspective

5. Evaluate writing quality and presentation (dimensions 5-6) — the skill handles these directly while the agents run.

6. After all agents complete, merge findings into the unified report:

   • fresh-eyes-reviewer output → "Fresh Eyes Read" section
   • domain-reviewer output → "Major Concerns" and "Minor Concerns" sections
   • adversarial-reviewer output → primary source for "Referee Objections" and any FATAL-severity entries in "Major Concerns"
   • Skill's own Dim 5-6 evaluation → "Writing Quality" and "Presentation" entries in concerns

7. Produce the unified review report.

8. Save to quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md

Step 4: Dispatch Three Reviewer Agents in Parallel

Send one message with three Task calls so the agents run concurrently. Each agent has a distinct job and they should not see each other's output.

Task 1: domain-reviewer

Task prompt: "You are the domain-reviewer agent. Review the manuscript at [path].
Research question: [from spec if available].

Apply all 6 review lenses:
1. Assumption stress test
2. Derivation verification
3. Citation fidelity
4. Code-theory alignment
5. Backward logic check
6. Design-specific diagnostics audit — verify that the paper reports the actual numerical results of the diagnostics the claimed design demands (parallel-trends event-study coefficients, McCrary t-stat, Olea-Pflueger first-stage F, AR weak-IV CI, in-space placebo permutation, balance table, etc., depending on design). Treat a missing required diagnostic as CRITICAL.

Also check cross-document consistency.
Follow the domain-reviewer agent instructions and return your full substance review report."