| name | research-reviewer |
| version | 1.0 |
| description | Audits a completed research item for citation discipline, speculation control, writing quality, and logical coherence. Use after research investigation is complete and before the item is marked done. Audit-only — never edits the item. |
Skill: Research Item Review
When Not to Use
- When the research item is still in progress — complete the investigation first
- When a quick sanity check is needed rather than a full audit — use
citation-discipline, speculation-control, or remove-ai-slop individually
- When the goal is to improve the writing — this skill audits; it does not rewrite
Interaction Protocol
Operating mode: Audit-only. Read the item. Report violations. Do not edit, rewrite, or commit anything.
Before starting, confirm:
- Is the item complete? (Findings, Evidence Map, and Executive Summary are populated — not stubs or "TBD")
- Which sections require full audit? (Research Skill Output and Findings sections require full checks; Context section has lighter standards — see scope notes below)
Output: A structured violation report. See Output Format.
Inputs and Outputs
Input: A completed research item in structured Markdown format with Research Skill Output and Findings sections
Output: A structured audit report with per-skill PASS/FAIL verdicts and specific violations
Composability: Use after research §8 Output Finalisation; referenced in research skill as the final gate before marking an item complete. Applies citation-discipline, speculation-control, remove-ai-slop, and peer-reviewer in sequence.
Scope Notes
Apply these standards consistently across all items:
Research Skill Output and Findings sections: Full audit. All four skills apply at maximum rigour.
Context section: Lighter standard.
citation-discipline: flag only hard factual claims (specific statistics, named studies, precise dates) that lack a source. Do not flag framing prose, motivating rationale, or working hypotheses.speculation-control: flag overconfident assertions presented as settled fact. Allow unlabelled framing assumptions and working hypotheses — the Context section is intentionally a pre-investigation framing device.remove-ai-slop: apply normally.
Template structure: Do not flag required structural elements (section headers, numbered sections, Evidence Map table) as AI slop. These are required by the format.
Step 1 — Citation Discipline
Check the Research Skill Output and Findings sections for:
- Factual claims that lack a
[fact], [inference], or [assumption] label and a corresponding source
- Sourced claims where the citation does not directly support what is asserted
- Vague quantifiers ("many", "most", "significant") used without sourcing
- Acronyms or initialisms used without expansion on first occurrence
- Domain terms used without a link to an authoritative definition
Do not flag stubs or "TBD" sections — an incomplete section is not a citation violation.
The labels [inference] and [assumption] are the accepted convention for epistemic labelling in research items — treat them as compliant with citation discipline for the purpose of distinguishing verified facts from inferences.
Step 2 — Speculation Control
Check the Research Skill Output and Findings sections for:
- Speculative statements that are not prefixed with
Speculation: or Hypothesis:, or not labelled [inference] or [assumption]
- Opinions or subjective judgments that are not labelled
Opinion:
- Overconfident language ("clearly", "obviously", "undeniably") unsupported by evidence
- Evidentiary gaps filled with invented or assumed detail presented as fact
The labels [inference] and [assumption] in Research Skill Output sections are the accepted convention — treat them as compliant.
Step 3 — Remove AI Slop
Check the Findings section (Executive Summary, Key Findings, Analysis, etc.) for:
- Formulaic AI writing patterns: predictable transitions ("Furthermore", "Additionally", "It is important to note"), symmetrical paragraphs, explicit meta-structure ("In conclusion")
- Alignment artifacts: safety-prefacing language, over-explained causal links, unnecessary framing sentences
- Lexical monotony: repeated sentence openings, uniform sentence length, excessive hedging density
Apply remove-ai-slop/SKILL.md checks in full.
Step 4 — Peer Review
Check the Executive Summary, Key Findings, and Analysis sections for:
- Conclusions in the Executive Summary that lack corresponding supporting evidence in the Findings or Evidence Map
- Confidence levels not calibrated to source count and independence: High requires multiple independent sources; Medium requires one credible source; Low applies to single uncertain sources or strong inferential leaps
- Central findings that present a single explanation for a contested or multi-causal phenomenon without acknowledging alternatives exist
- Competing hypotheses dismissed without reasoning or evidence
- Missing cross-references to related completed items where the connection is material to the conclusion
Apply peer-reviewer/SKILL.md checks in full.
Output Format
Produce the report in this exact format:
REVIEW_TARGET: <item identifier or title>
citation-discipline: PASS | FAIL
VIOLATION: <specific violation with section reference or quote>
speculation-control: PASS | FAIL
VIOLATION: <specific violation with section reference or quote>
remove-ai-slop: PASS | FAIL
VIOLATION: <specific violation with section reference or quote>
peer-reviewer: PASS | FAIL
logical-coherence-and-evidence-sufficiency: PASS | FAIL
VIOLATION: <specific violation with section reference or quote>
alternative-explanations: PASS | FAIL
VIOLATION: <specific violation with section reference or quote>
cross-item-integration: PASS | FAIL
VIOLATION: <specific violation with section reference or quote>
OVERALL: PASS | FAIL
Rules:
- Use
PASS if no violations are found for a skill; use FAIL if any violations are found
- Each violation on its own line, indented two spaces, prefixed
VIOLATION:
OVERALL: PASS only if all four skills passed; otherwise OVERALL: FAIL- If a required companion skill file is missing, write
SKILL_FILE_MISSING as the result and treat it as PASS for the overall calculation
- If the item is a stub (Findings not yet populated), write
ITEM_INCOMPLETE and do not audit
