en un clic
review-paper
// Comprehensive manuscript review covering argument structure, methodology, citation completeness, writing quality, and potential referee objections. Works with .docx, .tex, .pdf, and .md manuscripts.
// Comprehensive manuscript review covering argument structure, methodology, citation completeness, writing quality, and potential referee objections. Works with .docx, .tex, .pdf, and .md manuscripts.
Challenge formatting decisions with 5-7 specific questions. Checks section ordering, content placement, missing elements, alternative structures, and compliance gaps.
Validate bibliography entries against citations in all manuscript files. Find missing entries and unused references.
Run the proofreading protocol on manuscript files. Checks grammar, typos, draft marker integrity, consistency, and academic writing quality. Produces a report without editing files.
Interactive interview to formalize a research idea into a structured specification with hypotheses and empirical strategy
Structured literature search and synthesis with citation extraction and gap identification
Generate structured research questions, testable hypotheses, and empirical strategies from a topic or dataset
| name | review-paper |
| description | Comprehensive manuscript review covering argument structure, methodology, citation completeness, writing quality, and potential referee objections. Works with .docx, .tex, .pdf, and .md manuscripts. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| argument-hint | [paper filename in manuscripts/ or master_supporting_docs/, or full path] |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob","Write","Task"] |
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 (.docx, .tex, .pdf, .md), or a filename in manuscripts/ or master_supporting_docs/.
Locate and read the manuscript. Check:
$ARGUMENTSmanuscripts/$ARGUMENTSmaster_supporting_docs/supporting_papers/$ARGUMENTSoutputs/ for formatted versionsRead the full paper end-to-end. For long documents, read in sections.
Evaluate across 6 dimensions (see below).
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
# Manuscript Review: [Paper Title]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Reviewer:** review-paper skill
**File:** [path to manuscript]
## Summary Assessment
**Overall recommendation:** [Strong Accept / Accept / Revise & Resubmit / Reject]
[2-3 paragraph summary: main contribution, strengths, and key concerns]
## Strengths
1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
3. [Strength 3]
## Major Concerns
### MC1: [Title]
- **Dimension:** [Argument / Methods / Results / Literature / Writing / Presentation]
- **Issue:** [Specific description]
- **Suggestion:** [How to address it]
- **Location:** [Section/page if applicable]
[Repeat for each major concern]
## Minor Concerns
### mc1: [Title]
- **Issue:** [Description]
- **Suggestion:** [Fix]
[Repeat]
## Referee Objections
These are the tough questions a top referee would likely raise:
### RO1: [Question]
**Why it matters:** [Why this could be fatal]
**How to address it:** [Suggested response or additional analysis]
[Repeat for 3-5 objections]
## Specific Comments
[Section-by-section comments, if any]
## Summary Ratings
| Dimension | Rating (1-5) |
|-----------|-------------|
| Argument Structure | [N] |
| Study Design / Methods | [N] |
| Results / Interpretation | [N] |
| Literature | [N] |
| Writing | [N] |
| Presentation | [N] |
| **Overall** | **[N]** |