review-paper

name	review-paper
description	Comprehensive manuscript review covering argument structure, identification strategy, econometric specification, citation completeness, and potential referee objections.
disable-model-invocation	true
argument-hint	[paper filename in master_supporting_docs/ or path to .tex/.pdf]
allowed-tools	["Read","Grep","Glob","Write","Task"]

Review Paper

Produce a thorough referee-style review of an academic manuscript.

Steps

1. Identify the paper: Use $ARGUMENTS. Check master_supporting_docs/supporting_papers/ or the paper folder.

2. Evaluate across 6 dimensions (rate each 1-5):

   • Argument Structure: Research question clarity, logical flow, evidence support, limitations acknowledged
   • Identification Strategy: Causal claim credibility, identifying assumptions stated, threats discussed, robustness checks proposed
   • Econometric Specification: Standard errors appropriate, functional form justified, sample selection discussed, multiple testing addressed, economic meaningfulness vs statistical significance
   • Literature Positioning: Key citations present, accurate characterization, clear differentiation, missing citations identified
   • Writing Quality: Clarity, tone, notation consistency, abstract quality, self-contained tables/figures
   • Presentation: Table/figure design, notation consistency across sections, typos, paper length

3. Generate 3-5 likely referee objections with suggested responses.

4. Overall recommendation: Strong Accept / Accept / Revise & Resubmit / Reject.

5. Save report to quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md.

Notes

• Be constructive. Identify strengths alongside weaknesses.
• Distinguish CRITICAL (math wrong) from MAJOR (missing discussion) from MINOR (could be clearer).