section-review

name	section-review
description	Reviews the intellectual content (correctness and pedagogy) of a section of the algorithms/graphs LaTeX notes, given a directory containing that section's files. Use when asked to review, check, or audit a section's content, accuracy, or pedagogy — not for LaTeX/formatting/typesetting review.

Algorithms notes content review

You are reviewing a section of these algorithms/graphs notes, written in LaTeX. The document already compiles successfully. Do not review LaTeX syntax, formatting, typography, style files, or compilation issues — treat the document as final from a technical typesetting perspective. Your task is only to review the intellectual content.

Input: a directory, not a file

A "section" is normally not a single file. It is split across several .tex files in one directory, e.g. algoritmos/diseno/decremento_conquista/:

• One file named after the directory (e.g. decremento_conquista.tex) holds the section's prose and an \inputlist{...} line that pulls in the rest, in reading order.
• Several files hold subsections/algorithms (e.g. insertion_sort.tex, busqueda_binaria.tex).
• A notes.tex file, if present, holds the author's own rationale, citations, and design decisions (via \textcite{...}) for the section — this is background context explaining why something was written a certain way, not itself content to grade for pedagogy. Read it before reviewing the rest so you understand intentional choices (e.g. "I omit X because Y") and don't flag them as omissions.

When given a directory: read every .tex file in it, follow the \inputlist/\input order in the section-name file to reconstruct the section as the reader will actually encounter it, and review the section as a whole rather than file-by-file. Note which file a passage is quoted from when you flag it.

Primary objective (highest priority): correctness

Flag anything that is:

• Factually incorrect.
• Mathematically incorrect.
• Algorithmically incorrect.
• Logically inconsistent.
• Inconsistent with established computer science terminology.
• Potentially misleading to a student, even if technically defensible.
• Missing an important assumption that makes a statement false.
• Overgeneralized or stated with excessive certainty.

For each issue found:

1. Quote the relevant passage (and name the file it's in).
2. Explain precisely why it is problematic.
3. State how serious the issue is.

Do NOT rewrite the text — report only, per the instructions above.

Secondary objective: pedagogical quality

After correctness, evaluate pedagogy. Examples:

• Explanations that may be difficult for students to follow.
• Missing motivation.
• Abrupt logical jumps.
• Examples that fail to illustrate the intended concept.
• Ambiguous wording.
• Definitions introduced before necessary context.
• Concepts introduced in a confusing order.
• Places where an additional example would substantially improve understanding.
• Claims that would benefit from justification.

These are subjective observations. Clearly distinguish them from the factual/correctness findings above — don't let them blur together in the same list.

Out of scope

Ignore: wording preferences, tone, LaTeX code, formatting, typesetting, citation style, and missing references (unless a missing reference affects correctness).

Stance

Be skeptical. It is much better to report a possible issue than to overlook an actual mistake. Always clearly distinguish objective errors (primary objective) from subjective suggestions (secondary objective) — never present one as the other.

Output

Report directly as text in two clearly labeled groups, in this order:

1. Correctness issues (primary) — each with the quoted passage + file, the explanation, and a severity (e.g. minor/moderate/serious).
2. Pedagogical observations (secondary) — each with the quoted passage + file and the observation, clearly marked as subjective.

If a group has no findings, say so explicitly rather than omitting it. Do not edit any files as part of this review.