| name | requesting-research-review |
| description | Use when an experiment phase is complete, before drawing conclusions, before writing results, or before claiming findings are publication-ready |
Requesting Research Review
Dispatch eureka:research-reviewer subagent to catch scientific issues before they propagate. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the evidence, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
Core principle: Review before you conclude.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each major experiment phase (baselines, ablations, main experiments)
- Before writing any Results or Conclusion section
- Before submitting to any journal, conference, or preprint server
- Before reporting results to collaborators or supervisors
Optional but valuable:
- When results are surprising (real signal or artifact?)
- After revising analysis in response to feedback
- Before committing to a new research direction based on results
- When stuck interpreting ambiguous results
How to Request
1. Identify what you're reviewing:
Determine which research phase just completed and what the reviewer needs to evaluate.
2. Gather the review context:
RESEARCH_QUESTION = The exact hypothesis being tested
DESIGN_DOC_PATH = Path to the approved research design document
RESULTS_PATHS = Paths to ALL result files (not just summaries)
PHASE_DESCRIPTION = Which phase just completed (e.g., "baseline experiments")
DOMAIN_CONTEXT = Field-specific context, tools, typical effect sizes
TARGET_VENUE = Target journal or conference (sets the bar)
PASS_THRESHOLD = Score threshold (85 for mid-project, 95 for pre-submission)
3. Dispatch the research-reviewer subagent:
Use the Agent tool with eureka:research-reviewer type. Fill the template at requesting-research-review/research-reviewer-prompt.md with the gathered context.
4. Act on feedback:
- CRITICAL issues: Stop work. Do not report results. Do not proceed to the next phase. Fix the issue and request re-review.
- MAJOR issues: Fix before next phase. Do not build on flawed foundations.
- MINOR issues: Track and address before publication.
- Push back if the reviewer is wrong — with specific evidence from your data.
Choosing the Right Threshold
| Situation | Threshold | Reasoning |
|---|
| Mid-project checkpoint | 85/100 | Catch major issues early without demanding final polish |
| Before writing results | 90/100 | Claims must be well-supported before committing to paper |
| Pre-submission gate | 95/100 | Publication-ready: all claims verified, all stats complete |
| Quick sanity check | 80/100 | Just checking for obvious problems |
Example
[Just completed baseline experiments comparing three models on a held-out test set]
You: Let me request a research review before interpreting these results.
RESEARCH_QUESTION = "Does Model C outperform Model A and Model B baselines
on outcome Y prediction?"
DESIGN_DOC_PATH = docs/eureka/designs/2026-04-10-model-baselines-design.md
RESULTS_PATHS = results/run_20260411_171136/cv_results.json,
results/baseline_modelA/, results/baseline_modelB/
PHASE_DESCRIPTION = Baseline experiment completion (Model A, Model B, Model C)
DOMAIN_CONTEXT = Supervised prediction on cohort data,
Pearson r and R-squared are standard metrics
TARGET_VENUE = [target journal]
PASS_THRESHOLD = 85
[Dispatch eureka:research-reviewer subagent]
[Subagent returns]:
D1: 88 D2: 82 D3: 75 D4: 70 D5: 72 D6: 78 D7: 80
Overall: FAIL (D3, D4 below threshold)
Critical: Single seed results reported — need ≥5 seeds
Major: No confidence intervals on Pearson r comparisons
You: [Fix: re-run with 10 seeds, add bootstrap CIs]
[Request re-review after fixes]
Integration
- Called by:
eureka:using-eureka (when experiment phase completion detected)
- Dispatches:
eureka:research-reviewer agent (via Agent tool)
- Pairs with:
eureka:receiving-research-review (for handling the feedback)
Red Flags
Never:
- Skip review because "the results are obvious"
- Ignore Critical issues
- Proceed to writing with unresolved Major issues
- Dismiss reviewer feedback without checking against your actual data
If reviewer is wrong:
- Push back with specific evidence (file paths, computed values)
- Show the data that contradicts the reviewer's assessment
- Request clarification on unclear feedback
See template at: requesting-research-review/research-reviewer-prompt.md
