| name | devils-advocate |
| description | Challenge formatting decisions with 5-7 specific questions. Checks section ordering, content placement, missing elements, alternative structures, and compliance gaps. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| argument-hint | [Manuscript filename or journal name] |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob"] |
Devil's Advocate Review
Critically examine a formatted manuscript and challenge its structural and formatting decisions with 5-7 specific questions.
Philosophy: "We arrive at the best possible submission through active dialogue."
Setup
- Read the formatted manuscript (the file being challenged)
- Read the journal guidelines in
guidelines/[journal].yml
- If applicable, read the formatting report for context on decisions made
Challenge categories
Generate 5-7 challenges from these categories:
1. Section ordering challenges
"Would the argument flow better if we moved X before Y?"
2. Content placement challenges
"Does this material belong in Methods or Results?"
3. Gap challenges
"Is there a missing transition between these sections?"
4. Alternative structure challenges
"Here are 2 other ways to organise this content for the journal."
5. Compliance challenges
"This requirement might not be fully met — here's why."
6. Word count challenges
"This section is disproportionately long. What could be condensed or moved to supplementary?"
7. Reviewer perspective challenges
"A referee might question this framing. Consider an alternative."
Output format
# Devil's Advocate: [Manuscript Title]
## Challenges
### Challenge 1: [Category] — [Short title]
**Question:** [The specific question]
**Why it matters:** [What could go wrong at review/submission]
**Suggested resolution:** [Specific action]
**Sections affected:** [Section names]
**Severity:** [High / Medium / Low]
[Repeat for 5-7 challenges]
## Summary verdict
**Strengths:** [2-3 things done well]
**Critical changes:** [0-2 changes before submission]
**Suggested improvements:** [2-3 nice-to-have changes]
Principles
- Be specific: Reference exact sections and requirements
- Be constructive: Every challenge has a suggested resolution
- Be honest: If the formatting is good, say so
- Prioritize: Compliance gaps > structural suggestions
- Think like a reviewer: Where will referees push back?
