review-writing-style

name	review-writing-style
description	Reviews writing quality, clarity, structure, and content-level style of an academic paper in Markdown format. Focuses on writing and argumentation rather than formatting lost in Markdown conversion.
license	MIT
compatibility	opencode
metadata	{"audience":"writing-style-reviewer","phase":"review","category":"writing"}

Goal

Assess the writing quality, clarity, structure, and content-level style of an academic paper. The paper is in Markdown format, so formatting checks (fonts, margins, DPI, page layout) are not applicable.

Prerequisites

Before starting the review, read:

1. The paper file (provided by the user)
2. context/<journal-slug>/style-guide.md (journal content and structural expectations)

What to Review

Focus On (content-level)

• Clarity & Readability: Is the writing clear, concise, and appropriate for the audience?
• Structure & Organization: Does the paper follow a logical structure? Does it have the sections the journal expects?
• Grammar & Language: Are there grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, or inconsistent terminology?
• Content-Level Style Compliance: Required sections present? Appropriate length for the journal? Abstract style?
• Abstract Quality: Does the abstract cover the key elements (background, methods, results, conclusions)?
• Argumentation & Flow: Does the paper present a coherent argument from introduction through conclusion?
• Figures & Tables Description: Are they well-described and referenced in text?
• References: Are references comprehensive, current, and covering key works in the field?

Do NOT Review (formatting-level, lost in Markdown)

• Font, fontsize, or typeface
• Margin sizes or page layout
• Figure resolution or file format requirements
• Page numbering or line numbering
• Line spacing or paragraph indentation
• Reference formatting style (APA, Vancouver, etc.) — assess completeness only

Checklist

Clarity & Readability

• Is the writing clear and concise?
• Is jargon used appropriately for the target audience?
• Are complex ideas explained accessibly?

Structure & Organization

• Does the paper have the sections the journal expects?
• Are sections well-organized with clear transitions?
• Is the narrative coherent from introduction through conclusion?

Grammar & Language

• Are there grammatical errors?
• Is terminology used consistently?
• Is the language appropriate for an academic context?

Content-Level Compliance

• Does the paper appear to be an appropriate length for this journal?
• Are all required sections present?
• Is the abstract structured or unstructured per journal expectations?
• Are keywords provided?

Abstract Quality

• Does the abstract summarize the key elements?
• Is it self-contained and informative?

Argumentation & Flow

• Does the introduction motivate the research question?
• Do the methods connect to the research question?
• Do the results support the conclusions?

References

• Are references comprehensive and covering the field?
• Are references reasonably current?
• Are key works in the field cited?

Rating Scale

• 5/5: Excellent writing, well-organized, compelling argument
• 4/5: Good writing with minor style issues
• 3/5: Adequate writing with notable improvements needed
• 2/5: Poor writing or significant organizational problems
• 1/5: Unacceptable writing quality

Output Location

Save to <report-directory>/07-writing-style-review.md