Deliver a mid-draft adversarial review of a paper — runs paper-critic + domain-reviewer + claim-verify + blindspot in parallel, optionally adds clarity-reviewer, then auto-synthesises into a prioritised revision plan. Use when the user requests a mid-draft adversarial review of a paper — runs paper-critic + domain-reviewer + claim-verify + blindspot in parallel, optionally adds clarity-reviewer, then auto-synthesises into a prioritised revision plan. Distinct from pre-submission-report (final-gate kitchen sink, 14 checks) — this is the active-drafting feedback loop. Triggers: 'review my draft', 'adversarial review', 'cluster review', 'mid-draft critique', 'feedback before pre-submission'.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Deliver a mid-draft adversarial review of a paper — runs paper-critic + domain-reviewer + claim-verify + blindspot in parallel, optionally adds clarity-reviewer, then auto-synthesises into a prioritised revision plan. Use when the user requests a mid-draft adversarial review of a paper — runs paper-critic + domain-reviewer + claim-verify + blindspot in parallel, optionally adds clarity-reviewer, then auto-synthesises into a prioritised revision plan. Distinct from pre-submission-report (final-gate kitchen sink, 14 checks) — this is the active-drafting feedback loop. Triggers: 'review my draft', 'adversarial review', 'cluster review', 'mid-draft critique', 'feedback before pre-submission'.
Parallel fan-out of a 4-agent read-only core on an active-drafting paper, optionally adding clarity-reviewer as a fifth agent, with auto-synthesise downstream. Lighter than pre-submission-report --parallel; designed for tight iteration, not final-gate verification. Outputs reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/YYYY-MM-DD-cluster-report.md (scope = paper slug from the paper path).
Output Path
Per rules/review-artefact-routing.md (auto-loads in research projects (path-scoped to paper-*/ and paper/)):
Source slug:review-cluster
Write reports to:reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/YYYY-MM-DD.md (scope = paper slug) inside the project. Path is relative to the research project root, not the Task-Management repo.
Never at project root (./CRITIC-REPORT.md-style filenames are forbidden — pre-rule layout).
Idempotency: if today's file exists, append a same-day descriptor ({date}-revision.md, {date}-r2.md, {date}-pre-submission.md) — never overwrite.
Index policy: the consolidated cluster report is an output-only artefact and receives no Check=review-cluster row. Each active reviewer receives its own row with Trigger=review-cluster.
Infrastructure repos (Task-Management, atlas-workspace, etc.): this section does not apply — the path-scoped rule won't load there.
Hard Rules
Existential — block output
All active sub-agents are read-only. No git, no latexmk, no edits. See subagent-write-guard.md.
Auto-synthesise via synthesise-reviews (unless --no-synthesise). Mid-draft work needs an actionable revision plan, not 4 raw reports.
Skip if paper isn't compile-ready — run latex first; review on broken builds is misleading. The skill checks compile-status before dispatching.
Cluster is for the user's own papers. For external papers, use peer-reviewer agent instead.
Prepare one common review input. After compile preflight, invoke in mode unless the user explicitly supplies a verified packet or requests . Record the packet archive hash and canonical PDF hash in every reviewer prompt and in the consolidated report. Packet creation itself creates no verdict row.
review-packet
fresh-review
--no-freeze-input
reviews/INDEX.md
Format — catch in review
Write one consolidated cluster report at reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/YYYY-MM-DD-cluster-report.md (scope = paper slug), in addition to the required per-agent reports and INDEX rows.
Findings tiered M/m/n (Major / moderate / minor) per severity-gradient.md.
Show which sub-agent flagged each finding (audit trail for traceability).
Clarity on request. With --clarity (or when the paper's prior referee reviews contain readability complaints), add clarity-reviewer as a 5th parallel agent — reader-experience stall map + the 10 clarity diagnostic classes. Its findings join the synthesis like the others.
Yardstick continuity on repeat runs. When a prior cluster report exists for the same paper (reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/), the new run reuses the prior run's frozen yardstick — same phase banner (severity-gradient), same rubric set, and the prior findings list passed to the agents as "verify addressedness + new issues only", never a fresh re-derivation of criteria from the revised text (scores across rounds must be comparable; a moved yardstick fakes improvement). If the prior report is unavailable or the user explicitly resets the phase, mark the report [YARDSTICK-REGENERATED: <reason>] under the phase banner. (Ported from ARS v3.19 re-review protocol, 2026-07-24.)
When to Use
Active drafting: paper compiles, content is taking shape, want adversarial feedback before final polish
Mid-revision: addressed first round of supervisor comments; want fresh perspective before next pass
Pre-pre-submission: ~2 weeks before submission, want to surface major issues with time to address
Before sharing draft with co-authors
When NOT to Use
Paper is in final pre-submission state — use pre-submission-report --parallel (13 sub-agents, full kitchen sink)
Paper is in early scaffold (introduction only, no method/results) — review will flag everything as missing
Reviewing someone else's paper — use peer-reviewer agent
R&R revision response — use strategic-revision --external instead (genuine venue-comment-driven)
Modes
Invocation
Behaviour
review-cluster
Full 4-agent fan-out + auto-synthesise
review-cluster <paper-path>
Same, explicit paper
review-cluster --no-synthesise
Run agents in parallel; show 4 raw reports without merging
review-cluster --clarity
Add clarity-reviewer as the 5th agent; include its report in stamping and synthesis
review-cluster --no-freeze-input
Review the live compile-ready source without sealing a packet; record this weaker snapshot regime explicitly
Architecture
Phase 1 (preflight) → latex compile check + decision-ready manuscript review packet; abort if broken
Phase 2 (dispatch) → 4 core read-only sub-agents, plus optional clarity-reviewer, in parallel
Phase 3 (math) → IF theory paper: verify-math on the model section(s) [orchestrator-run skill]
Phase 4 (consolidate) → synthesise-reviews merges (incl. math verdict) → revision plan
Phase 5 (report) → reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/YYYY-MM-DD-cluster-report.md
The 4-agent core and optional clarity reviewer
#
Agent
Why this lens
1
paper-critic (specialist mode if venue known)
General adversarial — structural issues, argument quality, contribution clarity. Most-cited reviewer in the family.
2
domain-reviewer
Math derivations, assumption completeness, citation fidelity at the substantive level, code-theory alignment. Catches what paper-critic doesn't have the lens for.
3
claim-verify
Citation fidelity at the per-claim level — does what's written about Smith (2024) actually match Smith (2024)? Distinct from bib-validate (existence) and paper-critic (structure).
4
blindspot
Peripheral-vision audit — vices in plain sight + virtues being overlooked. Distinct from adversarial review because it surfaces missed opportunities, not just things to fix.
5 (optional)
clarity-reviewer
Reader-ingestion stress test. Added with --clarity or when prior referee reviews contain readability complaints.
Why these four form the default core:
referee2-reviewer is excluded — it's the final-stage hostile review, used in pre-submission-report. Mid-draft, hostile review pre-empts genuine improvement.
artifact-coherence-auditor / reproducibility-auditor are excluded — relevant only when the paper is paired with a replication artifact, which is typically a pre-submission concern.
code-paper-auditor is excluded — a separate code-suite skill exists for code-side review.
proofread is excluded — editorial issues are too noisy mid-draft; deferred to pre-submission.
Dispatch contract (evidence-grounded findings)
When dispatching the active reviewer set (Phase 2), each prompt MUST carry the evidence clause from _shared/audit-integrity.md: every finding cites path:line (or §section) AND quotes the exact text it is about, verbatim — no quotable anchor, no finding. Phase 4 (synthesise-reviews) spot-verifies a sample and drops anything it cannot ground, so an agent that emits unanchored findings simply loses them. Tell the agents this up front so they anchor everything.
Phase 1: Pre-flight
# Auto-detect paper or use arg
PAPER_PATH="${1:-$(ls -d paper-*/paper 2>/dev/null | head -1)}"
[ -z "$PAPER_PATH" ] && echo"No paper-*/ directory found" && exit 1
# Check compile-readiness — exit if last latex run failed
LATEST_PDF=$(find "$PAPER_PATH/out" -name "*.pdf" -newer "$PAPER_PATH/main.tex" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
if [ -z "$LATEST_PDF" ]; thenecho"Paper not compiled or stale. Run latex first."# the available structured-question mechanism: run latex now, or proceed anyway (risky)?fi
Phase 2: Dispatch
Construct the active reviewer set as paper-critic, domain-reviewer, claim-verify, and blindspot; append clarity-reviewer when --clarity is set or prior referee reviews contain readability complaints. Launch every active reviewer in a single parallel dispatch. Each gets:
Read-only with respect to project files under review — Read, Glob, Grep, Bash (read-only commands only) against the paper / code being reviewed; the agent does NOT modify any project source files
The standard forbid-list from subagent-write-guard.md
Paper path explicitly named
Frozen review identity — the common review-packet path, archive SHA-256, and canonical PDF SHA-256. Reviewers may read the project for anchors, but findings must be compatible with that frozen artifact; if live source has drifted, stop and regenerate the packet.
Output target — two-step, both required:
Write the per-agent report to reviews/<scope>/<source-slug>/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md (scope = paper slug, source-slug = agent name like paper-critic; run mkdir -p reviews/<scope>/<source-slug>/ first), then emit the standard stamp directive. The orchestrator-side propagation step appends the durable INDEX row.
Return a structured findings summary to the orchestrator for the Phase 4 consolidate step.
These two outputs are NOT mutually exclusive. The file under reviews/<source-slug>/ is the durable artefact and triggers the row stamp; the structured return value is the orchestrator's working copy for consolidation. Earlier wording — "not a file write" — was wrong: it suppressed the per-agent logging step and resulted in 0–1 of 4 cluster dispatches stamping a row in INDEX.md. The 2026-05-17 5-agent patch (commit 23ebcfff) made the agent-side intro unconditional; this dispatch-side fix is the orchestrator-side complement.
Wait for every active reviewer. Do not start Phase 4 (consolidate) until all return.
Phase 3: Math verification (theory papers only)
The 4-agent fan-out covers the conceptual math layer (via domain-reviewer, rung R0) but does not run the computational verification rungs. For a theory paper, add a verify-math pass so the algebra/analytic claims are machine-checked, not just read.
If there are no formal environments, skip this phase entirely.
If it IS a theory paper, invoke verify-math (via the skill-routing mechanism) scoped to the section(s) holding the model — it decomposes each proposition into atomic obligations and routes them across the spectrum (R0 conceptual · R1 numerical falsification · R2 symbolic/CAS · R3 Lean). verify-math is a skill, run by this orchestrator in the main session — this is deliberate: the computational rungs (numerical-check, symbolic-check, lean-check) need Bash + sympy/lean, which sub-agents cannot reliably obtain at runtime (the same Bash-grant fragility documented below). The orchestrator always has Bash, so the rungs run here, not inside an agent.
verify-math writes its own aggregate report to reviews/<scope>/verify-math/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md and stamps its own INDEX.md row (it is a self-stamping skill, like proofread). Fold its aggregate verdict — and any FALSIFIED obligation — into the Phase 4 synthesis as a high-confidence finding (a machine-falsified claim outranks any single reviewer's concern).
Avoid double-work:domain-reviewer (agent #2) and verify-math's R0 rung both cover the conceptual layer. When this phase runs, tell domain-reviewer in its dispatch prompt that the algebraic identities and comparative-static signs are being machine-verified separately, so it should focus on the conceptual obligations (assumption completeness, citation fidelity, backward logic) rather than re-deriving algebra — see the domain-reviewer "Math R0 Mode" preset.
Phase 4: Consolidate
If --no-synthesise: stop here and show every active reviewer's raw report.
Otherwise, invoke synthesise-reviews with every active reviewer's report as input. Output is a prioritised revision plan with:
Cross-reviewer agreement (claims raised by ≥2 reviewers — high confidence)
Single-reviewer claims (medium confidence)
Blindspot virtues (opportunities, not problems — sometimes the most valuable finding)
Recommended action queue with priority + estimated effort
Phase 5: Report
Save to reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/YYYY-MM-DD-cluster-report.md (scope = paper slug):
# Review Cluster Report — YYYY-MM-DD**Paper:**<path>**Compile status:**<PASS / WARN / FAIL>**Review packet:**<path, archive SHA-256, canonical PDF SHA-256>**Reviewers:**<activereviewerset; includeclarity-reviewerwhenrequested>## Summary- Major issues (M-tier): N
- Moderate (m-tier): N
- Minor (n-tier): N
- Blindspot virtues (opportunities): N
## Cross-reviewer agreement (high confidence)
| Issue | Severity | Flagged by |
|---|---|---|
| ... | M | paper-critic, domain-reviewer |
## Single-reviewer claims (medium confidence)
[Table by severity]
## Blindspot — virtues + missed opportunities
[Items from #4 sub-agent]
## Recommended action queue1. [Highest-priority]
2. ...
Cross-References
Skill / Agent / Rule
Relationship
pre-submission-report --parallel
Final-gate kitchen sink (14 checks) — this skill is the mid-draft analogue (4-agent core, optional 5th)
review-packet
Defines and optionally seals the common manuscript decision surface reviewed by every agent
synthesise-reviews
The merge step this skill invokes
strategic-revision
After this skill produces a synthesis, optionally hand it to strategic-revision --internal <synthesis-path> when interdependent issues need a DAG and critical path
This skill is an orchestrator in the REVIEW-STATE.md schema. As of the 2026-05-19 architecture change, the orchestrator (this skill) handles all stamping; sub-agents emit directives but do not call the helper themselves. Every active reviewer ends its final response with a review-state-stamp fenced block (see the installed shared resource _shared/stamp-directive-spec.md).
Required orchestrator behaviour
When constructing prompts for the active reviewer set, include this line in each:
Emit a review-state-stamp directive at the end of your final response per the installed shared resource _shared/stamp-directive-spec.md. Set trigger: review-cluster (or omit — this orchestrator overrides). Do not call the stamping helper yourself.
After all active reviewers return
For each sub-agent's return:
Write the agent's final response to a temp file (/tmp/review-cluster-<agent>.md).
If parse-stamp-directive.sh exits non-zero, log a warning ("Agent X return did not contain a review-state-stamp directive") and continue with the next agent — best-effort.
Verify the .md report file exists; reconstruct from return content if missing:
VERIFY=$(bash <skills-root>/_shared/post-dispatch-verify.sh \
--return-file /tmp/review-cluster-<agent>.md \
--project "$PROJECT_ROOT" \
--agent <agent>)
# $VERIFY is 'OK <path>' or 'RECONSTRUCTED <path>'.# Exit code 10 means reconstruction happened — append a marker to the notes# so review-recap shows this row was a recovery, not a real run.
If VERIFY starts with RECONSTRUCTED, append (report reconstructed by orchestrator — agent skipped Write) to the --notes value before stamping. This guards against the blindspot-class failure mode (agent claims to write but skips the call). See log/2026-05-21-blindspot-write-fix.md.
Stamp with the orchestrator's --trigger override (overriding whatever the agent emitted):
Every active reviewer's stamp lands in <project>/reviews/INDEX.md with the same orchestrator name and roughly the same Last Run timestamp, making the cluster visible at a glance. With --clarity, this includes the fifth clarity-reviewer row.
Why the orchestrator stamps (not the sub-agent)
Agents have inconsistent Bash tool grants at runtime (the 2026-05-19 harness investigation showed paper-critic and domain-reviewer self-report Bash unavailable despite YAML grants). The orchestrator always has Bash and always runs after the agents return. Moving stamping here decouples it from agent tool-surface uncertainty.
Schema: the installed shared resource shared/review-state-schema.md.
Stamp directive format: the installed shared resource _shared/stamp-directive-spec.md.
Anti-Patterns
Don't include referee2-reviewer in the cluster — that's the final-stage hostile review, not mid-draft.
Don't run cluster review on a broken build — phase-1 check should abort.
Don't auto-apply fixes from the synthesised report — the report is read-only output. User reviews and dispatches edit-agents (per subagent-write-guard.md) separately.
Don't run cluster review on every save — designed for milestone-driven iteration, not continuous integration.
