paper-excellence

name	paper-excellence
description	Multi-agent paper review dispatching econometrics-critic, debugger, academic-proofreader, and replication-verifier in parallel. Computes weighted aggregate score per scoring-protocol.md. Use for comprehensive quality check before submission or major milestones.
disable-model-invocation	true
argument-hint	[paper .tex path OR 'all' for full project review]
allowed-tools	["Read","Grep","Glob","Write","Task","Bash"]

Paper Excellence Review

Run all review agents in parallel for a comprehensive paper quality assessment. Computes the weighted aggregate score from scoring-protocol.md.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to paper .tex file, or all for full project review.

---

Workflow

Step 1: Identify Targets

• If $ARGUMENTS is a .tex file: review that file
• If $ARGUMENTS is all: review paper/main.tex + all scripts in scripts/R/
• Also scan for Talks/*.tex for auxiliary scoring

Step 2: Gather Context

Before launching agents:

1. Read .claude/rules/domain-profile.md for field-specific calibration
2. Read .claude/rules/scoring-protocol.md for weight formula
3. Read any existing strategy memos in quality_reports/

Step 3: Launch Review Agents (Parallel)

Launch up to 4 agents simultaneously via Task tool:

Agent 1: econometrics-critic (subagent_type: econometrics-critic)

Review [paper.tex] through all 4 phases: claim, design validity, inference, polish.
Also check scripts in scripts/R/ for code-theory alignment.
Save report to quality_reports/[file]_econometrics_review.md

Weight: Identification 25% of aggregate score.

Agent 2: Debugger (subagent_type: general-purpose, with debugger agent instructions)

Review all scripts in scripts/R/ for code quality and correctness.
Run categories 4-12 (code quality) plus categories 1-3 (strategic) if strategy memo exists.
Save report to quality_reports/[script]_code_review.md

Weight: Code 15% of aggregate score.

Agent 3: academic-proofreader (subagent_type: academic-proofreader)

Review [paper.tex] for grammar, writing quality, claims-evidence alignment,
notation consistency, and compilation. 6 check categories.
Save report to quality_reports/[file]_proofread_report.md

Weight: Paper 25% of aggregate score.

Agent 4: replication-verifier (subagent_type: replication-verifier)

Run standard verification (checks 1-4): LaTeX compilation, script execution,
file integrity, output freshness.
Save report to quality_reports/[file]_verification.md

Weight: Replication 5% of aggregate score.

Step 4: Launch Talk Review (Advisory, if talks exist)

If Talks/*.tex files exist, launch:

storyteller — check notation matches paper, slide count within format range. discussant — narrative flow, visual quality, content fidelity.

Talk scores are advisory, non-blocking.

Step 5: Compute Weighted Aggregate Score

Per scoring-protocol.md, compute:

Overall = Σ (weight_k × score_k) for available components

Component	Weight	Agent
Literature	10%	(skip if no lit review exists)
Data	10%	(skip if no data review exists)
Identification	25%	econometrics-critic
Code	15%	debugger
Paper	25%	academic-proofreader
Polish	10%	(from academic-proofreader writing quality subscore)
Replication	5%	replication-verifier

If components are missing, renormalize weights over available components.

Step 6: Present Results

# Paper Excellence Report: [Title]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Aggregate Score:** [XX/100] — [gate status]

## Score Breakdown
| Component | Weight | Score | Issues | Agent |
|-----------|--------|-------|--------|-------|
| Identification | 25% | XX | N | econometrics-critic |
| Code | 15% | XX | N | Debugger |
| Paper | 25% | XX | N | academic-proofreader |
| Polish | 10% | XX | N | academic-proofreader |
| Replication | 5% | XX | PASS/FAIL | replication-verifier |

## Auxiliary: Talk Scores (non-blocking)
| Talk | Score | Issues |
|------|-------|--------|

## Priority Fixes (Top 5)
1. **[CRITICAL]** [Most important — from which agent]
2. **[MAJOR]** [Second priority]
...

## Full Reports
[Links to individual report files]

Step 7: Gate Enforcement

Per quality-gates.md:

• Score >= 95 + all components >= 80: "Ready for top-5 submission."
• Score >= 90: "Ready for submission. Minor polish recommended."
• Score >= 80: "Commit-ready. Address major issues before submission."
• Score < 80: "Blocked. Must fix critical/major issues."

---

Principles

• Paper score is blocking. Must pass quality gates.
• Talk scores are advisory. Reported but non-blocking.
• Parallel execution. All agents run simultaneously.
• Weighted aggregation. Uses scoring-protocol.md formula, not simple average.
• Don't double-count. Same issue in multiple reports counts once.
• One unified report. User sees one priority list, not separate reports.