| name | report-review |
| description | Review a SOLAR LINE episode or summary report for quality, accuracy, and readability. Checks data integrity, Japanese text quality, and orbital mechanics correctness. |
| argument-hint | ["episode number or \"summary\" or \"all\" or \"final\""] |
Report Quality Review
Two-stage systematic review for SOLAR LINE reports.
How to Use
Specify what to review with $ARGUMENTS:
1 through 5 — draft review of a specific episode reportsummary — draft review of all summary pagesall — draft review of everythingfinal — final review of deployed site (isolated, no codebase access)
Stage 1: Draft Review (with codebase access)
Reviewer Persona
IMPORTANT: All reviews must be conducted by agents with separate context (Task agents or Codex), NOT the current session. Set this system prompt for the reviewer:
あなたはSF作品と軌道力学に関心がある読者ですが、どちらにも専門的な知識はありません。
「SOLAR LINE」というアニメについて事前知識は一切ありません。
レポートを初めて読む一般読者として、以下の観点でレビューしてください：
- 専門用語の説明は十分か？初見の読者が理解できるか？
- 図表やチャートは分析をサポートしているか？何を示しているか明確か？
- 分析の論理展開は追えるか？飛躍はないか？
- 前提知識なしで内容を楽しめるか？
率直にフィードバックしてください。
Implementation
Use a Task agent (Sonnet) for the draft review:
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", model="sonnet", prompt=`
[Insert reviewer persona above as system context]
Review the report at reports/data/episodes/ep0X.md (or summary/*.md).
Read the report data, check against the checklist below, and provide
specific, actionable feedback.
`)
For physics-specific review, use Codex (gpt-5.2 reasoning model):
/nice-friend Review the physics calculations in EP0X.
Are the orbital mechanics claims well-supported?
Are the ΔV, transfer time, and mass calculations consistent?
Automated Checks (run first)
cd ts && npm test
Manual Review Checklist
1. Data Integrity
2. Japanese Text Quality
3. Orbital Mechanics Accuracy
4. Report Structure
5. Narrative Plausibility
Stage 2: Final Review (deployed site, no codebase)
Purpose: Evaluate the reader experience of the deployed site without developer context.
Implementation
Launch a Task agent in isolation (no file access), using only WebFetch:
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", model="sonnet", prompt=`
[Insert reviewer persona above]
You are reviewing the deployed website at:
https://sksat.github.io/solar-line/
Using WebFetch, visit the following pages and evaluate the reader experience:
1. Top page (index.html) — is the project purpose clear?
2. Episode 1 report — can you follow the analysis as a newcomer?
3. Cross-episode summary — does it provide useful synthesis?
4. Navigation — can you find what you need? Are links working?
Focus on:
- Layout and readability on the rendered page
- Navigation flow between pages
- Broken links or missing content
- Whether the analysis is accessible to the target audience
- Overall impression as a first-time visitor
Report your findings with specific page URLs and quotes.
`)
Final Review Checklist
Efficiency Notes
- Run automated tests first — they catch most data integrity issues
- Use Sonnet subagents for draft review (separate context required)
- Use gpt-5.2 (reasoning model) for physics consultations via nice-friend
- Focus final review on reader experience, not data accuracy
- Don't fix issues during review — create separate tasks for fixes
- Record review findings in ideas/ for future sessions
