review-paper

name	review-paper
description	Manuscript review covering argument structure, econometric specification, citation completeness, likely referee objections. Use when getting substantive academic feedback on a paper, not surface edits.
when_to_use	review my paper, feedback on draft, what would a referee say, anticipate referee objections, act as referee, check identification strategy, is my argument convincing, review manuscript, critique paper, will this pass review
argument-hint	[paper filename in manuscripts/ 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 .qmd), or a filename in manuscripts/ or references/papers/.

Steps

1. Locate and read the manuscript. Check:

   • Direct path from $ARGUMENTS
   • manuscripts/$ARGUMENTS
   • references/papers/$ARGUMENTS
   • Glob for partial matches in manuscripts/ and references/papers/

2. Read the full paper end-to-end. For long PDFs, read in chunks (5 pages at a time).

3. Read references/domain-profile.md for field and top journals — use these to calibrate the referee perspective (see Principles).

4. Dispatch three reviewer agents in parallel via Task (one message, three Task calls — see below):

   • domain-reviewer — substantive correctness through 6 lenses (including design-specific diagnostic reporting)
   • adversarial-reviewer — hostile-referee attack on the paper
   • fresh-eyes-reviewer — first-time reader perspective

5. Evaluate writing quality and presentation (dimensions 5-6) — the skill handles these directly while the agents run.

6. After all agents complete, merge findings into the unified report:

   • fresh-eyes-reviewer output → "Fresh Eyes Read" section
   • domain-reviewer output → "Major Concerns" and "Minor Concerns" sections
   • adversarial-reviewer output → primary source for "Referee Objections" and any FATAL-severity entries in "Major Concerns"
   • Skill's own Dim 5-6 evaluation → "Writing Quality" and "Presentation" entries in concerns

7. Produce the unified review report.

8. Save to quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md

Step 4: Dispatch Three Reviewer Agents in Parallel

Send one message with three Task calls so the agents run concurrently. Each agent has a distinct job and they should not see each other's output.

Task 1: domain-reviewer

Task prompt: "You are the domain-reviewer agent. Review the manuscript at [path].
Research question: [from spec if available].

Apply all 6 review lenses:
1. Assumption stress test
2. Derivation verification
3. Citation fidelity
4. Code-theory alignment
5. Backward logic check
6. Design-specific diagnostics audit — verify that the paper reports the actual numerical results of the diagnostics the claimed design demands (parallel-trends event-study coefficients, McCrary t-stat, Olea-Pflueger first-stage F, AR weak-IV CI, in-space placebo permutation, balance table, etc., depending on design). Treat a missing required diagnostic as CRITICAL.

Also check cross-document consistency.
Follow the domain-reviewer agent instructions and return your full substance review report."

Task 2: adversarial-reviewer

Task prompt: "You are the adversarial-reviewer agent. Your job is to attack the
paper at [path] — find the strongest possible critique a hostile referee would make.
Research question: [from spec if available].
Target venue: [from domain-profile.md if set, else 'unspecified — use top field journal bar'].

Apply all 5 attack lenses:
1. Fatal flaw hunt
2. Over-claim detection
3. Alternative explanations (generate the 3 most plausible)
4. Identification weakest link
5. Rejection letter (two-paragraph desk-editor rejection)

Follow the adversarial-reviewer agent instructions and return your full adversarial report."

Task 3: fresh-eyes-reviewer

Task prompt: "You are the fresh-eyes-reviewer agent. Read the paper at [path]
as a first-time reader with NO prior context. Do NOT read the project spec,
lit review, ideation file, or analysis scripts — read only the manuscript.

Execute all 5 passes:
1. Title + abstract only
2. Introduction only
3. Main result table/figure standalone
4. Full paper read
5. What stays with you

Follow the fresh-eyes-reviewer agent instructions and return your full fresh-eyes report."

Wait for all three to complete. Collect their outputs for the merge step.

Steps 5-6: Evaluate Writing/Presentation, Then Merge

While the agents run, evaluate dimensions 5-6 directly (writing quality, presentation). Once all three agents return:

• Fresh Eyes Read section — paste the fresh-eyes summary (Passes 1-5 condensed + top 3 clarity issues).
• Major Concerns — combine domain-reviewer MAJOR/CRITICAL findings from all 6 lenses + adversarial-reviewer fatal flaws + your Dim 5-6 major findings. Surface Lens 6 CRITICAL items (missing required diagnostics) at the top of Major Concerns — these are the items most likely to draw a referee rejection.
• Minor Concerns — domain-reviewer MINOR findings + your Dim 5-6 minor findings.
• Referee Objections — primarily from adversarial-reviewer: fatal flaw, top over-claims, top alternative explanations, identification weakest link.
• Rejection Letter Preview — paste the adversarial-reviewer's two-paragraph rejection verbatim under a "What a desk editor might say" subheading.

Review Dimensions

1. Argument Structure

• Is the research question clearly stated?
• Does the introduction motivate the question effectively?
• Is the logical flow sound (question → method → results → conclusion)?
• Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?
• Are limitations acknowledged?

2. Identification Strategy

• Is the causal claim credible?
• What are the key identifying assumptions? Are they stated explicitly?
• Are there threats to identification (omitted variables, reverse causality, measurement error)?
• Are robustness checks adequate?
• Is the estimator appropriate for the research design?

3. Econometric Specification

• Correct standard errors (clustered? robust? bootstrap?)?
• Appropriate functional form?
• Sample selection issues?
• Multiple testing concerns?
• Are point estimates economically meaningful (not just statistically significant)?

4. Literature Positioning

• Are the key papers cited?
• Is prior work characterized accurately?
• Is the contribution clearly differentiated from existing work?
• Any missing citations that a referee would flag?

5. Writing Quality

• Clarity and concision
• Academic tone
• Consistent notation throughout
• Abstract effectively summarizes the paper
• Tables and figures are self-contained (clear labels, notes, sources)

6. Presentation

• Are tables and figures well-designed?
• Is notation consistent throughout?
• Are there any typos, grammatical errors, or formatting issues?
• Is the paper the right length for the contribution?

Output Format

# Manuscript Review: [Paper Title]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Reviewer:** review-paper skill (agents: domain-reviewer, adversarial-reviewer, fresh-eyes-reviewer)
**File:** [path to manuscript]

## Summary Assessment

**Overall recommendation:** [Strong Accept / Accept / Revise & Resubmit / Reject]

[2-3 paragraph summary: main contribution, strengths, and key concerns]

## Fresh Eyes Read

*How the paper lands on a first-time reader (from fresh-eyes-reviewer agent).*

**After title + abstract — one-sentence takeaway:** ...
**After intro — what reader expects:** ...
**Main display standalone?** [Yes / Partially / No — what's missing]
**What stays with the reader:** ...

### Top 3 Clarity Issues
1. [issue with location]
2. ...
3. ...

### Top 3 Things That Landed
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

## Strengths

1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
3. [Strength 3]

## Major Concerns

### MC1: [Title]
- **Source:** [domain-reviewer / adversarial-reviewer / skill (writing or presentation)]
- **Dimension:** [Identification / Econometrics / Argument / Literature / Writing / Presentation / Fatal Flaw]
- **Issue:** [Specific description]
- **Suggestion:** [How to address it]
- **Location:** [Section/page/table if applicable]

[Repeat for each major concern. FATAL-severity items from adversarial-reviewer go first.]

## Minor Concerns

### mc1: [Title]
- **Issue:** [Description]
- **Suggestion:** [Fix]

[Repeat]

## Referee Objections

*Primarily sourced from the adversarial-reviewer's attack lenses — these are the tough questions a hostile referee would raise.*

### RO1: [Question]
**Why it matters:** [Why this could be fatal]
**How to address it:** [Suggested response or additional analysis]

[Include: fatal flaw as RO1, top over-claims, top alternative explanations, identification weakest link. Target 4-6 objections total.]

## What a Desk Editor Might Say

*Two-paragraph rejection letter from the adversarial-reviewer. Read this before submission.*

[Paste adversarial-reviewer's rejection letter verbatim.]

## Specific Comments

[Line-by-line or section-by-section comments, if any]

## Summary Statistics

| Dimension | Rating (1-5) |
|-----------|-------------|
| Argument Structure | [N] |
| Identification | [N] |
| Econometrics | [N] |
| Literature | [N] |
| Writing | [N] |
| Presentation | [N] |
| First-read clarity | [N] |
| Adversarial robustness | [N] |
| **Overall** | **[N]** |

Principles

• Be constructive. Every criticism should come with a suggestion.
• Be specific. Reference exact sections, equations, tables.
• Calibrate to the field's top journals (from references/domain-profile.md). An AER/QJE referee weights identification above all else; an APSR/AJPS referee weights theoretical framing and measurement validity; an ASR/AJS referee weights theoretical contribution. If no domain profile is set, flag the assumption you're making.
• Distinguish fatal flaws from minor issues. Not everything is equally important.
• Acknowledge what's done well. Good research deserves recognition.
• Do NOT fabricate details. If you can't read a section clearly, say so.