review-paper

name	review-paper
description	Critically review paper understanding and reading notes quality

Review paper reading notes using three sequential passes. This command runs end-to-end without confirmation checkpoints — all passes execute, fixes are applied, and a summary is presented at completion.

Philosophy

Rush nothing. This is craft that rewards reflection — step back, let ideas settle, allow connections to surface that aren't obvious at first pass.

Each pass builds on the previous. Run them in order: comprehension → critique → integration. Apply fixes from each pass before proceeding to the next — comprehension gaps from pass 1 would invalidate critique work if done out of order.

Setup

First action before any other work: Request all permissions upfront so the rest runs uninterrupted.

1. Read a file from docs/<domain_name>/<paper_name> (confirms notes exist)
2. Read the source PDF file using the pdf skill from sources/<domain_name>/<paper_name>.pdf (confirms both the source and the pdf skill exist)
3. Run a Grep search on the papers directory
4. Launch a quick Task to confirm Task tool access (triggers Task permission)

Get all approvals immediately, then proceed with the workflow.

If docs/papers/ is empty or doesn't exist, stop and inform the user — nothing to review.

Invocation

• /review-paper — Run all three passes on most recent paper
• /review-paper comprehension — Comprehension pass only
• /review-paper critique — Critique pass only
• /review-paper integration — Integration pass only
• /review-paper <slug> — All passes on a specific paper

The Three Passes

Pass 1: Comprehension Audit

Persona: Experienced professor conducting a reading group. You care about whether the reader actually understands the paper — not just whether they took notes.

On approach: Channel the Recurse Center ethos — real understanding means you can explain it, rebuild it, and argue with it. Summaries that paraphrase the abstract are a red flag.

Focus: Does the reader understand the paper, or just think they understand it?

Check for:

Understanding gaps:

• Synthesis note TL;DR that's just the abstract reworded (no genuine compression happened)
• Method description that recites steps but doesn't explain why each step is needed
• Missing intuition — equations presented without interpretation
• "Core idea" that describes what but not why it works

Explanation quality:

• Could someone reconstruct the approach from the deep-read notes alone?
• Are the ASCII diagrams actually clarifying, or decorative?
• Do the walk-through examples use realistic values and cover edge cases?
• Is boundary behavior of key equations explored?

Completeness:

• All core sections from structure map covered in deep-read?
• Key equations identified and unpacked?
• Experimental results assessed, not just reported?

Methodology:

1. Read 00-triage.md for initial expectations
2. Read 01-structure.md for what was identified as core
3. Read 02-deep-read.md — does it deliver on the structure map's promises?
4. Read 03-synthesis.md — does it compress genuinely, or just paraphrase?
5. Cross-check: Does the understanding verification checklist actually pass?
6. Apply fixes directly — add missing intuition, deepen explanations, fill gaps

Reflect before proceeding: After fixing comprehension issues, are there claims in the notes that should now be questioned? Note areas for critique pass.

---

Pass 2: Critical Assessment

Persona: Peer reviewer who has read hundreds of papers in this area. You assess the paper's actual contribution — not just what the notes say about it.

On approach: Channel Martin Kleppmann's rigor — trace the argument, verify the logic, check that trade-offs are acknowledged. Bring the skeptical reviewer mindset: separate what's shown from what's claimed.

Focus: Is the reader's assessment of the paper fair and rigorous?

Check for:

Overclaiming in notes:

• Strengths listed without evidence (e.g., "elegant approach" — why is it elegant?)
• Weaknesses that are too gentle or miss obvious issues
• Results accepted uncritically (did the notes actually check baselines, compute budgets, statistical significance?)

Missing critical perspective:

• Implicit assumptions the paper makes but doesn't acknowledge
• Failure modes or edge cases not discussed
• Comparison with alternative approaches that the paper ignores
• Scalability, generalizability, or reproducibility concerns

Argument integrity:

• Does the paper's evidence actually support its claims?
• Are there logical gaps in the argument chain?
• Do the notes flag these, or accept the paper's narrative at face value?

Methodology:

1. Re-read the original paper alongside the notes
2. For each claim in the synthesis: trace it back to evidence in the paper
3. Identify what the paper assumes but doesn't prove
4. Check: Are the "Questions & Follow-ups" genuinely probing, or surface-level?
5. Use Task tool to search for related work that the paper might have missed or the notes should reference
6. Apply fixes — strengthen critique sections, add missing questions, note unsupported claims

Reflect before proceeding: Has the critical assessment changed the overall evaluation of the paper? Should the TL;DR or "Core Idea" be revised?

---

Pass 3: Integration Review

Persona: Research advisor helping connect this paper to the reader's broader knowledge and current projects.

On approach: This pass is about connections — between papers, between theory and practice, between what you've read and what you're building. A paper read in isolation is quickly forgotten. A paper connected to your work becomes a tool.

Focus: Connections, applications, and the growing knowledge graph.

Check for:

Cross-paper connections:

• Does the Connections section reference related papers already in docs/papers/?
• Are those connections substantive ("both use attention mechanisms" is weak; "this paper's sparse attention solves the scalability problem noted in [other paper]" is strong)
• Should older paper notes be updated to reference this new paper?

Project relevance:

• Are connections to current work specific and actionable, or vague?
• Could any technique or insight from this paper be applied to current projects?
• If so, what would be the first concrete step?

Knowledge gaps exposed:

• Did this paper reveal background knowledge the reader is missing?
• Are there foundational papers that should be read to better understand this one?
• Are the "Papers to read next" recommendations well-chosen?

Note durability:

• Will the synthesis note make sense in 6 months? Are there implicit references that need to be made explicit?
• Is the vocabulary section complete?
• Would a table-of-contents or tag system help with future retrieval?

Methodology:

1. Read all existing paper notes in docs/papers/
2. Identify genuine connections (not forced ones)
3. Update the current paper's Connections section
4. Update related papers' Connections sections to cross-reference
5. Check if the Questions & Follow-ups suggest a clear next-reading path
6. Apply fixes — enrich connections, add reading-path suggestions, improve long-term note quality

---

Output Summary

After all passes complete, present:

## Review Summary: [Paper Title]

### Comprehension Audit
- [Understanding gaps found and filled]
- [Explanations deepened: N sections]
- [Missing intuition added for: equations/diagrams]

### Critical Assessment
- [Overclaiming corrected: N instances]
- [Critical questions added: N]
- [Unsupported claims flagged: N]

### Integration Review
- [Cross-paper connections made: N]
- [Older papers updated: list]
- [Suggested next readings: list]

### Understanding Score
Before review: [assessment]
After review: [assessment]
Key remaining gap: [the single most important thing still not fully understood]

### Areas for Reader Attention
- [Anything that requires the reader to go back to the original paper]
- [Concepts that need external resources to fully understand]
- [Decisions about interpretation that could go multiple ways]

When to Flag vs Fix

Flag for reader attention when:

• Multiple valid interpretations of a passage exist
• Technical accuracy depends on domain knowledge the reviewer lacks
• A fix would change the overall assessment of the paper
• Understanding requires reading a prerequisite paper first

Fix autonomously when:

• The note clearly misrepresents what the paper says
• A connection to an existing paper note is obvious
• Formatting or structural issues in the notes
• Missing information that's clearly present in the paper

Rules

• Read existing notes before modifying
• Run passes in order: comprehension → critique → integration
• Apply fixes from each pass before proceeding to next
• Always re-read the original paper (not just the notes) during critique pass
• Use Task tool for background research when checking technical claims
• Flag items requiring reader judgment — don't guess on ambiguous interpretations
• When in doubt about a paper's claim, note the doubt rather than resolving it