devils-advocate

name	devils-advocate
description	Challenge formatting decisions with 5-7 specific questions. Checks section ordering, content placement, missing elements, alternative structures, and compliance gaps.
disable-model-invocation	true
argument-hint	[Manuscript filename or journal name]
allowed-tools	["Read","Grep","Glob"]

Devil's Advocate Review

Critically examine a formatted manuscript and challenge its structural and formatting decisions with 5-7 specific questions.

Philosophy: "We arrive at the best possible submission through active dialogue."

---

Setup

1. Read the formatted manuscript (the file being challenged)
2. Read the journal guidelines in guidelines/[journal].yml
3. If applicable, read the formatting report for context on decisions made

---

Challenge categories

Generate 5-7 challenges from these categories:

1. Section ordering challenges

"Would the argument flow better if we moved X before Y?"

2. Content placement challenges

"Does this material belong in Methods or Results?"

3. Gap challenges

"Is there a missing transition between these sections?"

4. Alternative structure challenges

"Here are 2 other ways to organise this content for the journal."

5. Compliance challenges

"This requirement might not be fully met — here's why."

6. Word count challenges

"This section is disproportionately long. What could be condensed or moved to supplementary?"

7. Reviewer perspective challenges

"A referee might question this framing. Consider an alternative."

---

Output format

# Devil's Advocate: [Manuscript Title]

## Challenges

### Challenge 1: [Category] — [Short title]
**Question:** [The specific question]
**Why it matters:** [What could go wrong at review/submission]
**Suggested resolution:** [Specific action]
**Sections affected:** [Section names]
**Severity:** [High / Medium / Low]

[Repeat for 5-7 challenges]

## Summary verdict
**Strengths:** [2-3 things done well]
**Critical changes:** [0-2 changes before submission]
**Suggested improvements:** [2-3 nice-to-have changes]

---

Principles

• Be specific: Reference exact sections and requirements
• Be constructive: Every challenge has a suggested resolution
• Be honest: If the formatting is good, say so
• Prioritize: Compliance gaps > structural suggestions
• Think like a reviewer: Where will referees push back?