| name | review-paper |
| description | Comprehensive manuscript review covering argument structure, econometric specification, citation completeness, and potential referee objections |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| argument-hint | [paper filename in master_supporting_docs/ or path to .tex/.pdf] |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob","Write","Task"] |
Manuscript Review
Produce a thorough, constructive review of an academic manuscript -- the kind of report a top-journal referee would write.
Input: $ARGUMENTS -- path to a paper (.tex, .pdf), or a filename in master_supporting_docs/.
Steps
- Locate and read the manuscript.
- Read the full paper end-to-end. For long PDFs, read in chunks.
- Evaluate across 6 dimensions: Argument Structure, Identification Strategy, Econometric Specification, Literature Positioning, Writing Quality, Presentation.
- Generate 3-5 "referee objections" -- the tough questions a top referee would ask.
- Produce the review report.
- Save to
quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md
Principles
- Be constructive. Every criticism should come with a suggestion.
- Be specific. Reference exact sections, equations, tables.
- Think like a referee at a top-5 journal.
- Distinguish fatal flaws from minor issues.
- Acknowledge what's done well.
- Do NOT fabricate details.
