| name | structured-reviewing |
| description | Provide constructive academic review feedback using structured rubrics and criteria. Use when reviewing drafts, giving feedback, or conducting peer review. |
| metadata | {"author":"specialist-team","version":"1.0.0"} |
Structured Reviewing
Your Task
When reviewing academic work, provide:
- Structured feedback using consistent criteria
- Constructive comments that help improve the work
- Specific examples and actionable suggestions
- Balanced assessment of strengths and weaknesses
- Prioritized recommendations by importance
Review Framework
Three-Pass Review Method
Pass 1: Big Picture (5 min)
- What is the main argument/contribution?
- Is the structure logical?
- Does the introduction preview what follows?
- Does the conclusion deliver on promises?
Pass 2: Section-Level (15-20 min)
- Does each section serve its purpose?
- Are transitions smooth between sections?
- Is evidence sufficient for each claim?
- Are citations appropriate and complete?
Pass 3: Paragraph/Sentence Level (10-15 min)
- Is writing clear and concise?
- Are there grammatical issues?
- Is academic tone maintained?
- Are technical terms used correctly?
Review Criteria
Argument Quality
| Level | Description |
|---|
| Excellent | Clear thesis, well-supported, addresses counterarguments |
| Good | Clear thesis, mostly supported, some gaps |
| Adequate | Thesis present but support uneven |
| Needs Work | Thesis unclear or unsupported |
Questions to Ask:
- What is the main claim?
- Is it clearly stated?
- What evidence supports it?
- Are alternative views considered?
- Is the conclusion warranted by the evidence?
Structure and Organization
| Level | Description |
|---|
| Excellent | Logical flow, clear sections, effective transitions |
| Good | Generally logical, minor organizational issues |
| Adequate | Some structure, but flow interrupted |
| Needs Work | Disorganized, hard to follow |
Questions to Ask:
- Does the introduction set up what follows?
- Do sections follow a logical order?
- Do paragraphs build on each other?
- Is there a clear beginning, middle, end?
Evidence and Citations
| Level | Description |
|---|
| Excellent | Strong, relevant sources; proper integration |
| Good | Good sources, mostly well-integrated |
| Adequate | Some sources, integration issues |
| Needs Work | Insufficient or poorly used sources |
Questions to Ask:
- Are claims supported by evidence?
- Are sources credible and appropriate?
- Are citations formatted correctly?
- Is there over-reliance on any single source?
Clarity and Style
| Level | Description |
|---|
| Excellent | Clear, precise, engaging academic prose |
| Good | Mostly clear with minor issues |
| Adequate | Understandable but needs polish |
| Needs Work | Confusing or inappropriate style |
Questions to Ask:
- Can I understand each sentence on first read?
- Is the language appropriately formal?
- Are technical terms defined?
- Is the writing concise?
Feedback Types
Praise (What's Working)
Start with genuine strengths:
✓ Strong opening that immediately establishes relevance
✓ Excellent integration of Smith's framework
✓ Clear methodology section with good justification
Suggestions (What Could Be Better)
Frame as opportunities, not failures:
→ Consider adding a transitional paragraph between §2 and §3
→ The evidence on p. 5 would benefit from more context
→ A summary table might help readers compare the approaches
Questions (Clarification Needed)
Ask when meaning is unclear:
? What does "significant impact" mean in this context?
? Is this your interpretation or the author's claim?
? How does this point connect to your main argument?
Issues (Must Address)
Flag critical problems clearly:
⚠ The claim on p. 8 appears unsupported
⚠ Missing citation for direct quote on p. 3
⚠ Contradiction between §4 and §6 needs resolution
Feedback Levels
High-Level Feedback
Focus on:
- Overall argument strength
- Structure effectiveness
- Contribution clarity
- Gap in logic or evidence
Template:
## Overall Assessment
**Strengths**: [2-3 key positives]
**Main Areas for Development**:
1. [Most important issue]
2. [Second priority]
3. [Third priority]
**Summary**: [1-2 sentence overall impression]
Section-Level Feedback
For each section:
## Section: [Name]
**Purpose achieved?** Yes/Partial/No
**Strengths**:
- [What works well]
**Suggestions**:
- [Specific improvements]
**Key question**: [If something is unclear]
Line-Level Feedback
For detailed editing:
**Line/Paragraph [X]**:
- Issue: [What the problem is]
- Suggestion: [How to fix it]
- Example: [Revised wording if helpful]
Constructive Feedback Principles
Be Specific
| Vague | Specific |
|---|
| "This is confusing" | "The relationship between X and Y is unclear; consider adding a transitional sentence" |
| "Needs more evidence" | "The claim about Z on p. 4 needs supporting citation" |
| "Awkward phrasing" | "Consider restructuring: 'X demonstrates Y' instead of 'It is demonstrated by X that Y'" |
Be Actionable
Every critique should suggest a path forward:
✗ "The argument is weak here"
✓ "Strengthen this argument by addressing the counterargument that..."
Be Balanced
Use the "sandwich" approach when appropriate:
- Something positive
- The critique
- How to improve
Prioritize
Not all feedback is equally important:
**Critical (must address)**:
- Unsupported central claim
**Important (should address)**:
- Missing transitions between sections
**Minor (nice to have)**:
- Some word choice refinements
Review Templates
Quick Review (10 min)
# Quick Review: [Title]
**Reviewer**: [Name]
**Date**: [Date]
## First Impressions
[2-3 sentences on overall quality]
## Strengths
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]
## Priority Improvements
1. [Most important]
2. [Second most important]
## Quick Wins
- [Easy fix 1]
- [Easy fix 2]
Full Review (30+ min)
# Comprehensive Review: [Title]
**Reviewer**: [Name]
**Date**: [Date]
**Review Type**: [Draft/Final/Peer Review]
## Executive Summary
[Overall assessment in 2-3 sentences]
## Evaluation
### Argument Quality: [Rating]
[Comments]
### Structure: [Rating]
[Comments]
### Evidence/Citations: [Rating]
[Comments]
### Clarity/Style: [Rating]
[Comments]
## Section-by-Section Feedback
### Introduction
[Comments]
### [Section 2 Name]
[Comments]
[Continue for each section]
## Detailed Comments
[Line-by-line or paragraph-level feedback]
## Summary
### Top 3 Priorities
1. [Priority 1]
2. [Priority 2]
3. [Priority 3]
### Overall Recommendation
[Recommendation and encouragement]
Common Pitfalls to Flag
In Arguments
- Unsupported claims
- Logical fallacies
- Strawman arguments
- Circular reasoning
- Overgeneralization
In Structure
- Missing introduction preview
- Abrupt section transitions
- Orphan paragraphs
- Missing conclusion synthesis
In Evidence
- Over-reliance on single source
- Outdated sources
- Missing citations
- Misrepresented sources
In Writing
- Passive voice overuse
- Jargon without definition
- Inconsistent terminology
- Run-on sentences
Quick Reference
| Review Goal | Approach |
|---|
| Quick assessment | Three-pass method |
| Structured evaluation | Use criteria rubrics |
| Constructive feedback | Specific + actionable |
| Prioritized suggestions | Flag critical vs. minor |
| Balanced review | Strengths + improvements |
