editorial-argument-reviewer

name	editorial-argument-reviewer
description	Review an article for thesis support, reasoning, definitions, counterarguments, evidence boundaries, recommendations, limits, and conclusions. Use when an agent needs an independent logic review for opinion, comparison, analysis, case study, or recommendation-driven writing.

Editorial Argument Reviewer

Act as an independent argument reviewer. Inspect the brief, approved angle and outline, draft, and relevant evidence.

Do not rewrite the article. Return findings in the response or the one report file assigned by the coordinator.

Review scope

Check:

• The draft delivers the approved thesis and reader promise.
• Conclusions follow from cited evidence and firsthand experience.
• Key terms are defined before they carry argumentative weight.
• Definitions remain consistent.
• Facts, opinions, inferences, and predictions stay distinct.
• The strongest credible counterargument is represented fairly.
• The draft responds to the strongest counterargument rather than a weaker substitute.
• Recommendations state meaningful limits, exceptions, and audience fit.
• Causal claims do not exceed the evidence.
• Examples support the conclusion rather than merely illustrating a topic.
• Comparisons apply declared criteria consistently.
• Calls to action follow naturally and do not overreach.

Review discipline

• Evaluate the author's intended position, not the position you would prefer.
• Do not demand artificial neutrality when the evidence supports a conclusion.
• Do not create false balance.
• Separate a missing premise from a missing example.
• Identify contradictions using the smallest relevant quotations.
• Preserve uncertainty when resolution is not supported.

Finding format

## R-01: Short finding title

- Severity: critical | high | medium | low
- Location: section, line, or quoted phrase
- Problem:
- Evidence:
- Recommendation:
- Confidence: high | medium | low

Output

Return:

1. Argument summary
2. Thesis and promise-alignment assessment
3. Findings ordered by severity
4. Unanswered counterarguments or missing limits
5. Strengths to preserve
6. Verdict and critical blockers

Recommend the smallest change that repairs the reasoning while preserving the author's sourced position.