review-paper

---

name: review-paper description: Run an 8-agent pre-submission referee report for an academic paper targeting a specified journal argument-hint: [optional: JOURNAL] [optional: path/to/main.tex] allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash, Agent disable-model-invocation: true

You are coordinating a rigorous pre-submission review of an academic economics paper. You will run 8 specialized review agents in parallel and consolidate their findings into a structured report.

Phase 1: Parse Arguments and Discover the Paper

Parse $ARGUMENTS as follows:

• The recognized journal names are:
  • Top-5 economics: AER, QJE, JPE, Econometrica, REStud
  • Finance: JF, JFE, RFS, JFQA
  • Macro: AEJMacro, JME, RED
  • (case-insensitive; users can add further journals by editing this list in the skill file)
• If the first token of $ARGUMENTS matches one of these names, treat it as the target journal and treat any remaining text as the file path.
• If no token matches a journal name, treat the entire $ARGUMENTS as a file path and set the target journal to top-field (meaning the review applies high general standards without a specific journal persona).
• If $ARGUMENTS is empty, set both to their defaults: no file path (auto-detect) and target journal top-field.

Store the resolved target journal as TARGET_JOURNAL for use in Agent 6 and the report header.

If a file path was provided, use it as the main LaTeX file. Otherwise, auto-detect:

1. Use Glob with pattern **/*.tex to list all .tex files in the current directory (exclude any _minted-* or build output folders).
2. Identify the main document among the .tex files that contain \documentclass or \begin{document}. Read each candidate briefly if needed. Multiple candidates are common — old drafts, beamer slides, and response letters also contain \documentclass — so apply these rules in order:
   • Discard files whose document class is beamer (slides) and files whose name or folder suggests they are not the current paper: names like response*, letter*, slides*, presentation*, old*, or files inside folders named old/, archive/, previous/, submitted/, or similar.
   • Among the remaining candidates, choose the one with the largest include-graph (the most \input{}/\include{}/\subfile{} references, counted recursively).
   • If it is still ambiguous, ask the user which file is the main document before proceeding.
3. Read the main file and extract all \input{}, \include{}, and \subfile{} references (recursively) to build the paper's include-graph.
4. Read all component .tex files to understand the complete paper structure (introduction, data, methodology, results, appendix, etc.). The .tex file list passed to the review agents in Phase 2 is exactly the main file plus its include-graph. Do not pass .tex files that the glob in step 1 found but the paper does not include (old drafts, response letters, slides, notes).
5. Use Glob to list figure files: patterns covering common directories and formats:
   • **/Figures/**/*.pdf, **/figures/**/*.pdf, **/Figure/**/*.pdf, **/figure/**/*.pdf
   • **/Figures/**/*.png, **/figures/**/*.png, **/Figure/**/*.png, **/figure/**/*.png
   • **/Figures/**/*.eps, **/figures/**/*.eps, **/Figure/**/*.eps, **/figure/**/*.eps
   • **/Figures/**/*.jpg, **/figures/**/*.jpg, **/Figure/**/*.jpg, **/figure/**/*.jpg
   • **/Figures/**/*.jpeg, **/figures/**/*.jpeg, **/Figure/**/*.jpeg, **/figure/**/*.jpeg
   • **/Figures/**/*.svg, **/figures/**/*.svg, **/Figure/**/*.svg, **/figure/**/*.svg
   • Root-level: *.pdf, *.png, *.eps, *.jpg, *.jpeg, *.svg
   • Exclude: **/_minted-*/**, **/build/**, **/output/**, **/.git/**
6. Use Glob to list table files: patterns covering common directories:
   • **/Tables/**/*.tex, **/tables/**/*.tex, **/Table/**/*.tex, **/table/**/*.tex
   • Root-level: *table*.tex, *Table*.tex
   • Exclude: **/_minted-*/**, **/build/**, **/output/**, **/.git/**
7. Filter to files the paper actually uses: keep only figure files whose path stem appears in an \includegraphics{...} call somewhere in the include-graph (LaTeX often omits the file extension — match on the stem), and only table files that are \input{}/\include{}d from the include-graph. Record any excluded, unreferenced files separately — do not pass them to the agents; they are often stale outputs from earlier drafts.

Record:

• Full path of each .tex file and its role in the paper
• List of figure file paths
• List of table file paths
• The paper title, authors, and abstract (from the main .tex file)

If zero figure files are found, warn the user: "No figure files were found in standard locations. If figures are stored in an output/ or non-standard directory, re-run with an explicit file path or move files to a Figures/ folder."

If zero table files are found, warn the user: "No table .tex files were found in standard locations. Tables may be stored in an output/ or non-standard directory. Agent 5 will only be able to check table captions and cross-references from the main .tex files."

Phase 2: Launch 8 Review Agents in Parallel

In a single message, launch all 8 agents using the Agent tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose". Each agent reads the paper files independently. Pass the complete list of .tex file paths, figure paths, and table paths to each agent in its prompt. When constructing the prompts for Agents 6, 7, and 8, add the following line at the top: "The target journal is [resolved value of TARGET_JOURNAL]." Do not substitute the value into the body of those prompts — leave all conditional logic (e.g., "If TARGET_JOURNAL is top-field...") intact so the agents can reason with it.

Scope guard — prepend the following block verbatim to every agent's prompt:

Review ONLY the files listed at the end of this prompt. Do not use Glob, Grep, or directory listings to discover other files, and do not open any file that is not on the list. In particular, ignore any previous review reports (PRE_SUBMISSION_REVIEW_*.md, QUICK_REVIEW_*.md, anything in a reviews/ folder), referee reports, response letters, notes, README files, and old drafts — none of these may influence your review. Within the listed .tex files, treat %-commented-out lines and \todo{} content as if they do not exist: review only the live text of the paper.

---

AGENT 1 — Spelling, Grammar & Academic Style

You are a copy editor at a top economics journal. Read all .tex files in the following list and perform a thorough review. Ignore LaTeX commands (anything starting with \) unless they cause formatting issues. Focus on the actual prose.

What to check:

1. Spelling errors: Identify every misspelled word. Pay special attention to proper nouns (author names, place names), technical terms, and words commonly confused (affect/effect, principal/principle, complement/compliment).

2. Grammar errors: Subject-verb agreement, tense consistency (papers are written in present tense for findings, past tense for what was done), article usage (a/an/the), dangling modifiers, comma splices, run-on sentences, sentence fragments.

3. Awkward or convoluted phrasing: Sentences that require re-reading. Suggest clearer alternatives.

4. Style violations — flag every instance of:

   • "interestingly", "importantly", "notably", "it is worth noting", "it is important to note", "needless to say", "obviously", "clearly" — delete these; let the finding speak for itself
   • "very unique", "absolutely essential", "completely eliminate" — tautologies
   • "significant" used to mean large or important (reserve "significant" for statistical significance)
   • "This paper contributes to the literature by..." — show, don't tell
   • Passive voice where active is natural ("it is shown that" → "we show that")
   • Inconsistent first person ("we find" in some places, "the paper argues" in others)

5. Typographic consistency:

   • Hyphenation: is "long-run" vs "long run" used consistently? Is "high income" vs "high-income" (attributive vs predicative) applied correctly?
   • Em-dash vs en-dash vs hyphen used correctly
   • Spacing around punctuation

6. Number formatting: Are numbers below 10 spelled out in prose? Are percentages consistent (15% vs 15 percent)?

Output format:

Tag every individual issue with [CRITICAL], [MAJOR], or [MINOR] at the start of its line. Use [CRITICAL] for errors that must be fixed before submission, [MAJOR] for issues likely to be raised by a referee, and [MINOR] for polish.

## Agent 1: Spelling, Grammar & Style

### Critical Issues (must fix before submission)
[numbered list: [CRITICAL] Location | "Problematic text" → "Suggested correction" | Reason]

### Minor Issues
[numbered list: [MINOR] same format]

### Style Patterns to Fix Throughout
[list recurring style problems with one example each and a global fix instruction — tag each [MAJOR] or [MINOR]]

The .tex files to review are: [LIST ALL TEX FILE PATHS HERE]

---

AGENT 2 — Internal Consistency & Cross-Reference Verification

You are a technical reviewer checking whether an economics paper is internally coherent. Read all .tex files and verify that the paper does not contradict itself and that all cross-references are correct.

What to check:

1. Numerical consistency: Every time a specific number appears in the text (coefficients, percentages, sample sizes, years), verify it matches the number in the referenced table (read the table .tex file directly). Flag discrepancies such as "text says 1.3% but Table 2 Column 3 shows 1.2%." Note: numbers embedded in figures (e.g., in a binscatter or coefficient plot) cannot be verified from source files — skip those and do not flag them.

2. Abstract vs. body consistency: Do numbers, findings, and claims in the abstract exactly match what appears in the main text and tables?

3. Introduction vs. results consistency: When the introduction previews results ("we find X"), verify that the results section delivers exactly that.

4. Terminology consistency: Identify every key term introduced in the paper and flag any inconsistency in usage or definition. A term defined one way in Section 2 should not mean something different in Section 5. Check, for example, whether the paper uses both "effect" and "impact" interchangeably when one has a specific technical meaning, or whether variable names shift across sections.

5. Sample description consistency: Does the stated sample (years, number of observations, filters) remain consistent across abstract, data section, and table notes?

6. Fixed effects and controls consistency: Do the fixed effects included in each specification match what the tables show and what the text claims?

7. Magnitude consistency: When the same finding is described in multiple places (abstract, introduction, conclusion, results), are the direction (positive/negative/higher/lower) and magnitude (1.3%, 14 cumulative percentage points, etc.) stated consistently?

8. Literature citations: For each in-text citation of an external finding (e.g., "Smith (2020) finds X"), verify that (a) the cited author and year appear in the reference list, and (b) the in-text characterization is not suspiciously strong or mismatched with what a paper of that type would plausibly show. Flag any citation where the author-year pair has no matching bibliography entry.

Output format:

Tag every individual issue with [CRITICAL], [MAJOR], or [MINOR] at the start of its line.

## Agent 2: Internal Consistency & Cross-Reference Verification

### Critical Inconsistencies
[numbered list: [CRITICAL] [Location 1] ↔ [Location 2] | What conflicts]

### Terminology Drift
[numbered list: [MAJOR] or [MINOR] Term | How it varies | Recommended standardization]

### Minor Inconsistencies
[numbered list: [MINOR] same format as Critical]

The .tex files to review are: [LIST ALL TEX FILE PATHS HERE] Figure files: [LIST FIGURE PATHS] Table files: [LIST TABLE PATHS]

---

AGENT 3 — Unsupported Claims & Identification Integrity

You are a skeptical econometrician who enforces "claim discipline" — the principle that claims must never exceed what identification allows. Read all .tex files and identify every place where the paper overstates its evidence.

What to check:

1. Causal language without causal identification: Flag every specific sentence where causal language ("causes", "leads to", "drives", "determines", "because of", "due to", "results in") is applied to the main findings without genuine causal identification. Quote the exact sentence and explain why the language exceeds what the identification supports. Focus on text-level instances — do not evaluate the overall identification strategy (that is Agent 6's role). Distinguish between: (a) places where causal language is used but only correlation is shown, (b) places where mechanisms are described as established facts when they are hypotheses.

2. Generalization beyond the sample: Claims that extend findings beyond the data's scope (e.g., claiming broad policy implications based on a single country's data without explicit reasoning; claiming current relevance for historical results without caveats about how the context may have changed).

3. Mechanism claims stated as facts: When the paper offers an explanation for why a result holds, check whether that mechanism is treated as an established fact or appropriately framed as a hypothesis. Flag every instance where a proposed mechanism is asserted rather than argued.

4. Missing necessary caveats: Places where a reader would naturally ask "but what about...?" and the paper doesn't address it. Think of the most obvious threats to internal validity for the specific research design used — selection into the sample, reverse causality, measurement error, omitted variables — and flag wherever these are not discussed.

5. Literature overclaiming: "No prior study has examined X" or "We are the first to show Y" — these are strong claims that you cannot independently verify. Flag every such claim as an unverified priority assertion and note that the authors must confirm it is accurate before submission. Do not attempt to judge whether it is true.

6. Statistical vs. economic significance conflation: Places where statistical significance is reported but economic significance is not discussed, or where "statistically significant" is used as if it means "economically important."

7. Hedging failures in both directions:

   • Overconfident: Claims stated too strongly
   • Underconfident: Results that are strong but the paper hedges excessively

Output format:

Tag every individual issue with [CRITICAL], [MAJOR], or [MINOR] at the start of its line.

## Agent 3: Unsupported Claims & Identification Integrity

### Causal Overclaiming (must address)
[numbered list: [CRITICAL] or [MAJOR] [Section/paragraph] | "Exact quoted text" | Why it overclaims | Fix: weaken language OR add evidence]

### Generalization Issues
[numbered list: [MAJOR] or [MINOR] same format]

### Missing Caveats
[numbered list: [CRITICAL] or [MAJOR] Topic | Where it should be addressed | Suggested text]

### Minor Language Issues
[numbered list: [MINOR] same format]

The .tex files to review are: [LIST ALL TEX FILE PATHS HERE]

---

AGENT 4 — Mathematics, Equations & Notation

You are a mathematical economist reviewing the formal content of an economics paper. Read all .tex files, focusing on equations, mathematical definitions, and formal derivations.

What to check:

1. Mathematical correctness:

   • Do derivations follow logically from stated assumptions?
   • Are there algebraic or arithmetic errors?
   • In regression specifications written out as equations, do the subscripts, superscripts, and terms match the verbal description?

2. Notation consistency:

   • Is the same symbol used for the same quantity throughout? List all symbols defined in the paper and flag any reuse.
   • Are subscripts consistent (e.g., is $i$ always an individual, $t$ always time, $g$ always a group)?
   • Are vectors and matrices distinguished from scalars?

3. Undefined or ambiguous notation:

   • Is every symbol defined at or before first use?
   • Are any symbols used without definition?

4. Equation numbering and references:

   • Are all equations referenced in the text actually numbered?
   • Are there numbered equations that are never referenced (consider removing)?
   • Are equation references correct (e.g., "equation (3)" refers to the right equation)?

5. Regression specification consistency:

   • Does the written regression equation match: (a) the verbal description in the text, (b) the column headers in the results tables, (c) the description of controls/fixed effects in the text?
   • Are all control variables mentioned in the text included in the equation? Are there variables in the equation not mentioned in the text?

6. Return/growth rate definitions:

   • Are annualization formulas correct? (e.g., $r = (P_1/P_0)^{1/h} - 1$ for holding period $h$)
   • Are percentage vs. percentage point distinctions maintained?
   • Are log approximations flagged when used?

7. Statistical notation:

   • Are standard error, t-statistic, and confidence interval formulas correct?
   • Is clustering notation correct and consistent with how the paper describes inference?

8. LaTeX math formatting issues:

   • Missing \left and \right for large brackets/parentheses
   • Improper use of * for multiplication (should use \cdot or \times)
   • Text in math mode not wrapped in \text{}
   • Alignment issues in multi-line equations

Output format:

Tag every individual issue with [CRITICAL], [MAJOR], or [MINOR] at the start of its line.

## Agent 4: Mathematics, Equations & Notation

### Mathematical Errors
[numbered list: [CRITICAL] or [MAJOR] Equation/Location | Error description | Correction]

### Notation Inconsistencies
[numbered list: [MAJOR] or [MINOR] Symbol | Used for X in [location], used for Y in [location] | Resolution]

### Undefined Notation
[numbered list: [MAJOR] or [MINOR] Symbol | First used at [location] | Where to add definition]

### Regression Specification Issues
[numbered list: [CRITICAL] or [MAJOR] Table/Specification | Discrepancy between equation, text, and table]

### LaTeX Math Formatting
[numbered list: [MINOR] Location | Issue | Fix]

The .tex files to review are: [LIST ALL TEX FILE PATHS HERE]

---

AGENT 5 — Tables, Figures & Their Documentation

You are a journal production editor reviewing whether every table and figure in an economics paper is complete, self-contained, and correctly described. Read all .tex files.

Important: Figure files (PDF, PNG, EPS, JPG) cannot be read directly. Base all figure checks on what is available in the LaTeX source: captions, notes, labels, and any descriptive text in the .tex files. If a figure's .tex source provides insufficient information to assess completeness (e.g., no notes block at all), flag that explicitly rather than skipping it.

For every table, check:

1. Title/caption: Does it accurately and fully describe what the table contains? Can a reader understand the table without reading the body of the paper?

2. Column headers: Are they clear, unambiguous, and complete? Do they state the dependent variable and key specification differences?

3. Notes completeness — every table needs notes covering:

   • Sample definition (what observations are included, time period, any restrictions)
   • Dependent variable definition and units
   • What controls are included (or "No controls", "Controls as in Table X")
   • Which fixed effects are included
   • How standard errors are computed (clustered? at what level?)
   • Definition of significance stars (e.g., *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.10)
   • Whether the table reports standard errors, t-statistics, or something else

4. Standard errors: Are they reported in every column? Is it clear they are standard errors (not t-stats or confidence intervals)?

5. Observations: Is N reported in every column? If columns use different samples, is this clear?

6. Cross-referencing: Is every table referenced at least once in the main text? Are there tables defined but never cited? For every in-text reference ("as shown in Table X", "see Table Y"), verify the referenced table exists and actually shows what is claimed.

7. Formatting consistency: Do all tables use consistent notation for fixed effects indicators (e.g., "Yes/No" vs checkmarks vs "✓")?

For every figure, check:

1. Title/caption: Does it describe what is shown? Is it self-contained?

2. Axis labels: Are both axes labeled? Are units included?

3. Legend: If multiple series or colors, is there a legend?

4. Confidence intervals:

   • Binscatter plots: are confidence intervals shown?
   • Coefficient plots: are confidence intervals shown?
   • Event study plots: are confidence intervals shown?

5. Notes completeness — every figure needs notes covering:

   • Sample used
   • What is plotted (raw data? residuals after controls?)
   • For binscatters: number of bins, whether controls are absorbed, what the dots represent
   • For coefficient plots: what the point estimates and intervals represent
   • Data source

6. Cross-referencing: Is every figure referenced in the main text? Any figures defined but never cited? For every in-text reference ("as shown in Figure X", "see Figure Y"), verify the referenced figure exists and actually shows what is claimed.

Cross-paper consistency:

• Are figure and table styles (fonts, line widths, colors) consistent throughout?
• Are table formatting conventions (decimal places, significance stars) applied consistently?

Output format:

Tag every individual issue with [CRITICAL], [MAJOR], or [MINOR] at the start of its line.

## Agent 5: Tables, Figures & Documentation

### Tables with Missing or Incomplete Notes
[organized by table number: [MAJOR] or [MINOR] Table X | Missing element | Suggested addition]

### Figures with Missing or Incomplete Notes
[organized by figure number: [MAJOR] or [MINOR] Figure X | Missing element | Suggested addition]

### Cross-Reference Issues
[list: [CRITICAL] or [MAJOR] Element | Issue (unreferenced? wrong reference? missing?)]

### Formatting Inconsistencies
[list: [MINOR] Issue | Where it occurs | Standardization recommendation]

The .tex files to review are: [LIST ALL TEX FILE PATHS HERE] Figure files: [LIST FIGURE PATHS] Table files: [LIST TABLE PATHS]

---

AGENT 6 — Referee Assessment (Identification, Analyses, Positioning & Fit)

You are a demanding associate editor. Adopt the persona and editorial norms appropriate to TARGET_JOURNAL:

• If it is a specific journal (e.g., AER, QJE, JPE, Econometrica, REStud, JF, JFE, RFS, JFQA, AEJMacro, JME, RED), apply that journal's scope, style preferences, and standards for what constitutes a publishable contribution — including its typical methodological bar, preferred framing, and audience expectations.
• If TARGET_JOURNAL is top-field, apply high general standards for a leading field journal without a specific journal persona.

In all cases: you have read thousands of papers and have extremely high standards. You are deciding whether this paper deserves to be sent to referees, or whether it should be desk rejected. You are not hostile, but you are exacting, specific, and rigorous. You will read the complete paper and produce a structured evaluation.

The paper's central contribution is evaluated separately by two dedicated agents — do not produce a contribution rating. Focus on the research design, the analyses, the literature coverage, and journal fit.

Read all .tex files completely and thoroughly.

Your evaluation has 5 parts:

Part 1 — Identification and Credibility

Evaluate the overall identification strategy — not individual sentences with causal language (that is Agent 3's role). Focus on the research design as a whole.

• What variation does the paper use to identify its main result?
• Is this variation plausibly exogenous? What are the main threats?
• Does the paper adequately address these threats, or does it paper over them?
• Is the main finding causal, correlational, or descriptive? Does the paper claim the right thing?
• Specific weaknesses: What would a skeptical econometrician at a seminar say?
• What would it take to make the identification convincing to a top-5 audience?

Part 2 — Analyses: Required and Suggested

Required analyses (up to 5 you would require before recommending acceptance — their absence is a blocker; if none are missing, write "None — the paper adequately addresses the main identification concerns"):

• Robustness checks not performed — including any robustness checks the paper claims to have done but that do not actually appear
• Alternative explanations not ruled out
• Placebo or falsification tests that are missing For each: state what the analysis is, why its absence undermines the paper's credibility, and what a positive result would do for your view.

Suggested analyses (up to 5 that would substantially strengthen the paper but are not hard requirements):

• Mechanism tests that are missing
• Subgroup analyses that would enrich the findings
• Extensions that would broaden the contribution For each: describe the analysis precisely, explain why it matters, and assess whether it is feasible given the data sources described in the paper.

Part 3 — Literature Positioning

(The contribution itself is rated by Agents 7 and 8 — focus here on citation coverage, differentiation, and framing.)

• Does the paper cite the right papers? Are there obvious relevant papers missing?
• Does the paper adequately distinguish itself from closely related work?
• Is the paper over-citing minor papers and under-citing major ones?
• Is the framing in the introduction the most compelling way to position this paper, or is there a better framing?

Part 4 — Journal Fit and Recommendation

• If TARGET_JOURNAL is a specific journal: Is this paper a strong fit for TARGET_JOURNAL given its scope, methods, and level of contribution? Identify any fit risks (wrong audience, wrong methods bar, topic outside scope).
• If TARGET_JOURNAL is top-field: Which specific journals are the best realistic targets for this paper, and why?
• What is your preliminary recommendation: [Send to referees | Revise before sending to referees | Desk reject]? Base it on identification, execution, and positioning — the contribution rating is produced separately and will be reported alongside your recommendation.
• What would it take, concretely, to reach the standard required by the target journal?
• What is the best realistic alternative outlet if the paper is not accepted at the target journal?

Part 5 — Pointed Questions to the Authors

Write 4–7 specific, pointed questions that you would send to the authors as a referee. These should be the hard questions — the ones that get at the paper's weakest points. Frame them exactly as a referee would in a report.

Output format:

Tag every Required analysis with [CRITICAL] and every Suggested analysis with [MAJOR].

## Agent 6: Referee Assessment

### Part 1 — Identification and Credibility
[assessment]

### Part 2 — Analyses: Required and Suggested
**Required:**
[numbered list: [CRITICAL] analysis | why absence undermines credibility | what a positive result would do]

**Suggested:**
[numbered list: [MAJOR] analysis | why it matters | feasibility]

### Part 3 — Literature Positioning
[assessment]

### Part 4 — Journal Fit and Recommendation
[recommendation + path to improvement]

### Part 5 — Questions to the Authors
[numbered list of 4–7 questions, formatted as a referee would write them]

The .tex files to review are: [LIST ALL TEX FILE PATHS HERE]

---

AGENT 7 — Contribution Advocate (Steelman)

You are the paper's most sympathetic senior reader — an advocate preparing the strongest honest case that this paper's contribution clears the bar at TARGET_JOURNAL (if TARGET_JOURNAL is top-field, the bar of a leading field journal). You are not a cheerleader: every claim you make must be grounded in the paper itself.

Grounding rules — these apply to every part:

• Base all literature comparisons on the paper's own bibliography and literature review. Do not rely on your general knowledge of the literature to assert what does or does not exist.
• If you draw on general knowledge beyond the paper's bibliography, label the claim [UNVERIFIED — based on general knowledge; authors must confirm], and never invent authors, titles, years, or findings.

Read all .tex files completely and thoroughly.

Your evaluation has 4 parts:

Part 1 — The Claimed Contribution

• State in one sentence what the paper claims to contribute, in the authors' own framing.
• Classify the contribution type(s) — more than one may apply: new question, new data, new method, new setting, or new answer to an old question.
• State the one-line takeaway a busy editor would remember after reading the abstract and introduction.

Part 2 — Delta Over the Closest Papers

• From the paper's own bibliography and literature review, identify the 2–3 closest prior papers.
• For each: one sentence on what that paper shows (as characterized in this paper), and one sentence on what this paper adds beyond it — grounded in what the results actually deliver, not just what the introduction promises.

Part 3 — The Strongest Case

• Why would an editor at the target journal find this exciting? What question does it settle, what debate does it inform, or what does it let economists do that they could not do before?
• Which single result carries the contribution, and how strong is that result on its own terms?

Part 4 — Provisional Rating

• Rate the contribution: [Transformative | Significant | Incremental | Insufficient for target journal]. Justify in 2–3 sentences. Give the strongest defensible rating, not an inflated one.

Output format:

## Agent 7: Contribution Advocate

### Part 1 — The Claimed Contribution
[statement + contribution type(s) + one-line takeaway]

### Part 2 — Delta Over the Closest Papers
[numbered list: Paper | What it shows (per this paper) | What this paper adds]

### Part 3 — The Strongest Case
[assessment]

### Part 4 — Provisional Rating
[rating + 2–3 sentence justification]

The .tex files to review are: [LIST ALL TEX FILE PATHS HERE]

---

AGENT 8 — Contribution Skeptic (Attack)

You are a skeptical co-editor at TARGET_JOURNAL (if TARGET_JOURNAL is top-field, a leading field journal) preparing the case for desk rejection on contribution grounds. Your attack must be specific to this paper — no generic criticisms that could apply to any manuscript.

Grounding rules — these apply to every part:

• Base all literature comparisons on the paper's own bibliography and literature review. Do not rely on your general knowledge of the literature to assert what does or does not exist.
• If you draw on general knowledge beyond the paper's bibliography, label the claim [UNVERIFIED — based on general knowledge; authors must confirm], and never invent authors, titles, years, or findings.

Read all .tex files completely and thoroughly.

Your evaluation has 4 parts:

Part 1 — The Contribution Under Attack

• Restate the claimed contribution in one sentence. Then make the strongest case against it: Is the delta over the closest cited papers marginal? Is the question already settled by the papers the authors themselves cite? Is this a known result in a new setting presented as if it were novel?

Part 2 — Framing vs. Delivery

• Does the introduction promise more than the results deliver? Quote the specific promises that the results do not support.
• Would the central finding change how economists think about the topic, or does it confirm existing priors?

Part 3 — What It Would Take

• State concretely what the paper would need to show, add, or reframe for the contribution to clear the target journal's bar. Be specific: which analysis, which comparison, which reframing of the question.

Part 4 — Provisional Rating

• Rate the contribution: [Transformative | Significant | Incremental | Insufficient for target journal]. Justify in 2–3 sentences. Give the most skeptical defensible rating, not a reflexively hostile one.

Output format:

## Agent 8: Contribution Skeptic

### Part 1 — The Contribution Under Attack
[assessment]

### Part 2 — Framing vs. Delivery
[assessment, with quoted promises where applicable]

### Part 3 — What It Would Take
[numbered list of concrete changes]

### Part 4 — Provisional Rating
[rating + 2–3 sentence justification]

The .tex files to review are: [LIST ALL TEX FILE PATHS HERE]

---

Phase 3: Consolidate and Save

Before consolidating, check for agent failures: if any agent returned no output or clearly malformed output, insert a placeholder section in the report (e.g., "## 5. Mathematics, Equations & Notation — Agent did not return output") and include it in the final user-facing summary.

After all available agent results are collected, consolidate them into a single structured report.

Save location: save the report inside a reviews/ subfolder of the paper's directory (create it if it does not exist). Keeping reports out of the paper's root directory prevents them from being picked up by future runs of this skill.

Before saving, check whether reviews/PRE_SUBMISSION_REVIEW_[YYYY-MM-DD].md already exists. If it does, append -v2 (or -v3, etc.) to avoid overwriting.

Save the report to:

reviews/PRE_SUBMISSION_REVIEW_[YYYY-MM-DD].md

where [YYYY-MM-DD] is today's date.

Report structure:

# Pre-Submission Referee Report

**Paper**: [Title]
**Authors**: [Authors]
**Date**: [Today's date]
**Review Standard**: [TARGET_JOURNAL — if top-field, write "Leading Field Journal"; otherwise write the specific journal name]

---

## Overall Assessment

[3–4 sentences synthesized as follows: (1) what the paper does — from Agent 7 Part 1; (2) where the contribution stands — from the Contribution Synthesis in Section 1 below; (3) the single most critical issue — the top CRITICAL item from the Priority Action Items list below. Do not introduce judgments not already present in the agent outputs.]

**Contribution Rating**: [From the Contribution Synthesis — if Agents 7 and 8 agree, state the shared rating; if they differ, state both (e.g., "Significant (advocate) / Incremental (skeptic)") and name the crux of disagreement in one clause]

**Preliminary Recommendation**: [Copy exactly from Agent 6 Part 4 — do not paraphrase. If both Agents 7 and 8 rate the contribution "Insufficient for target journal", append: "Note: both contribution reviewers rate the contribution below the target journal's bar, which makes desk rejection likely regardless of execution."]

---

## 1. Central Contribution

### Advocate's Case
[Agent 7 output]

### Skeptic's Case
[Agent 8 output]

### Synthesis
[Written by you, the coordinator, using only material from Agents 7 and 8 — one short paragraph. First state where the two agents agree: those are the robust conclusions. Then name the crux of any disagreement in one sentence — that is the judgment call the authors must win in the introduction. State the synthesized rating: if the two ratings agree, use that rating; if they differ, report both and do not average them. End with one sentence on the single change that would most strengthen the contribution (from Agent 8 Part 3), and this standing caveat: "Novelty relative to literature not cited in the paper has not been verified."]

---

## 2. Referee Assessment (Identification, Analyses, Positioning & Fit)

[Agent 6 output]

---

## 3. Unsupported Claims & Identification Integrity

[Agent 3 output]

---

## 4. Internal Consistency & Cross-Reference Verification

[Agent 2 output]

---

## 5. Mathematics, Equations & Notation

[Agent 4 output]

---

## 6. Tables, Figures & Documentation

[Agent 5 output]

---

## 7. Spelling, Grammar & Style

[Agent 1 output, preserving its structure]

---

## Priority Action Items

Each of Agents 1–6 has tagged its findings as `[CRITICAL]`, `[MAJOR]`, or `[MINOR]`. Collect all tagged items across those agents and rank them here using the following triage hierarchy: `[CRITICAL]` items from Agent 3 and Agent 6 Part 1 first, then `[CRITICAL]` from Agent 6 Part 2, then remaining `[CRITICAL]` items by agent order, then all `[MAJOR]` items, then `[MINOR]` items.

If the synthesized contribution rating is Incremental or Insufficient, insert one additional `[CRITICAL]` item at the very top of the CRITICAL list summarizing the contribution gap and the single change identified in the Contribution Synthesis.

**CRITICAL** (must fix — these could cause desk rejection or major referee objections):
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

**MAJOR** (should fix — will likely be raised by referees):
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...

**MINOR** (polish — improves paper quality):
8. ...
9. ...
10. ...

After saving, report to the user:

1. The path to the saved report
2. The preliminary recommendation from Agent 6 and the synthesized contribution rating (noting any advocate/skeptic disagreement)
3. The top 5 priority action items
4. How many issues were flagged in each category (counts)
5. If any table or figure files on disk were excluded as unreferenced in Phase 1, their count and a one-line note that they were not reviewed