research-report-reviewer

name	research-report-reviewer
description	Use when a research draft or report exists and needs a pre-final review for unsupported claims, ambiguity, scope drift, or missing evidence before delivery.
metadata	{"short-description":"Findings-first review of a research draft"}

OpenCode Runtime Notes

This skill is installed as an OpenCode-native SKILL.md. For runtime-backed helpers, prefer the shared ai-agents-skills runtime root and the AAS_RUNTIME_ROOT override instead of assuming a Codex-specific runtime path.

Research Report Reviewer

Use this after a draft exists and before presenting research as final.

What to inspect

• the stated scope, question, exclusions, and any requested output format
• available structured artifacts such as sources.jsonl, claims.jsonl, guards.jsonl, delivery.json, source ledgers, analysis matrices, and report evidence mappings
• unsupported or weakly supported claims
• missing dates or stale-time ambiguity
• scope drift relative to the original question
• places where observation and inference are blended together
• overconfident language that should be hedged or marked incomplete analysis
• whether prior posts, templates, style guides, or supplied examples were inspected before a format-matched draft
• whether the draft or workflow records an active writing-style profile from writing-style-settings.md, plus math-manuscript-style.md when applicable, including style_profile_ref, active_overlays, and active_requirement_ids
• whether style_applied: true is supported by workflow evidence rather than a bare self-assertion

Output contract

Start with a visible section titled Review Findings.

Then give:

• Verdict — BLOCK, FLAG, or PASS
• Findings — the highest-signal issues first
• Repairs — the minimum changes needed before delivery
• Style — missing or inconsistent style_profile_ref, active_overlays, active_requirement_ids, or style_applied records when relevant

If there are no issues, say so explicitly and keep the pass short.

Use references/reviewer-prompt.md as the detailed checklist.

Guardrails

• findings first, summary second
• focus on research quality, not copyediting
• prefer the smallest repair that makes the draft defensible
• if a gap cannot be closed, require explicit disclosure instead of pretending it is solved
• do not apply repairs, patch the reviewed report, create follow-on artifacts, or continue into remediation after a review-only request unless the user explicitly asks for those actions