section-review

Section Review

Overview

This is a review-only workflow for a complete section. It combines scientific critique with consistency auditing and returns one prioritized, evidence-backed report.

Follow AGENTS.md for manuscript policy and use the local Codex review agents in .agents/agents/.

When To Use

• After writing or substantially rewriting a full section
• Before handing a section to a co-author
• Before higher-risk submission checks
• When a section may have drifted from the rest of the manuscript

Inputs Required

Provide:

1. Target section file and section heading
2. The full target section text
3. The neighboring section context immediately before and after when available
4. Optional focus concerns, such as claim accuracy, comparison framing, or terminology drift

Local Agents To Use

• .agents/agents/scientific-paper-reviewer.md
• .agents/agents/consistency-auditor.md
• .agents/agents/paper-implementation-checker.md when the section is implementation-heavy or makes detailed technical claims

Workflow

Phase 0 - Optional Implementation Verification

For implementation-heavy sections such as <SECTION_FILE>, <SECTION_FILE>, <SECTION_FILE>, or claim-dense parts of <SECTION_FILE>, run a targeted paper-implementation-checker pass first on the highest-risk claims.

Use this branch when technical correctness is the primary risk. Summarize any DIVERGES or CANNOT_VERIFY findings before the broader review phases.

Phase 1 - Scientific Review

Use scientific-paper-reviewer on the target section and neighboring context.

Review for:

• local clarity
• redundancy
• claim precision and strength
• paragraph flow
• alignment with neighboring sections

Flag critical issues first and keep evidence grounded in the manuscript text.

Phase 2 - Consistency Audit

Use consistency-auditor on the same section.

Audit for:

• macro drift
• terminology drift
• acronym consistency
• notation mismatches
• naming inconsistencies
• contribution-statement alignment with the rest of the manuscript