Run this skill when the thesis is close to submission-ready and you want a final review or defence simulation. Triggers on: 'czy praca jest gotowa do oddania?', 'co powie promotor?', 'zrob recenzje', 'sprawdz jak wyglada od zewnatrz', 'co jeszcze moze mi promotor wytknac', 'przejrzyj jak recenzent', 'symuluj obrone'. Requires quality rubric from thesis-reference-calibrator. Four modes: Standard review (WNE promotor simulation), Hostile reviewer (three weakest points), Viva simulation (6 defence questions), Bibliography check. Always respond in the same language the user writes in.
Simulates the critical review a WNE UW supervisor (promotor) would apply to a thesis before approving it for submission. Surfaces problems before the supervisor does.
Architecture: Dispatches the appropriate review agent(s) based on mode:
wne-supervisor-agent + optionally bibliography-checker-wnehostile-reviewer-agentviva-examiner-agentbibliography-checker-wne, then synthesisedbibliography-checker-wne aloneThis skill does not rewrite or edit. Every finding is a diagnosis. Where the user asks how to address a finding, provides a directional pointer — not a draft replacement.
The user selects a mode, or Claude infers it from context. If unclear, ask.
Mode 1 — Standard Review (default)
Full systematic review simulating what a WNE UW promotor reads for before signing off. Produces a numbered list of findings with locations, severity ratings, and justifications. Checks both formal compliance (Załącznik B) and content/argumentation quality. If the user provides the bibliography/in-text citations, also dispatches bibliography-checker-wne in parallel.
Mode 2 — Hostile Reviewer Identifies the three weakest points in the argument — the findings most likely to cause a desk reject or a "conditionally pass" at defence. Operates from the perspective of a sceptical expert. Produces exactly three findings.
Mode 3 — Viva Simulation Generates exactly six questions a supervisor or defence committee member could ask. Questions distributed across three difficulty levels. For each question: what a strong answer addresses, what a weak answer looks like.
Mode 4 — Bibliography Check
Audits the bibliography and in-text citations only. Dispatches bibliography-checker-wne. Requires: the full reference list and a sample of in-text citations. Triggers when the user asks to check citations, references, or bibliography specifically.
Before beginning any mode, confirm the user has provided:
thesis-reference-calibrator (paste at session start)bibliography-checker-wneIf items 1–3 are missing, ask for them. Item 6 is required for bibliography audit; if not provided in Standard mode, note that bibliography audit will be skipped and offer to run it separately.
Przed wysłaniem agentów: Użyj narzędzia Read, aby wczytać plik principles/academic-writing.md z katalogu pluginu. Wyciągnij i zachowaj treść następujących kategorii:
Dołącz pełną treść tych kategorii do promptu każdego uruchamianego agenta recenzji jako sekcję:
## Pryncypia akademickie (kategorie A, B, E)
[treść kategorii A, B, E z pliku principles/academic-writing.md]
Agenci recenzji (wne-supervisor-agent, hostile-reviewer-agent, viva-examiner-agent) używają tych pryncypiów jako kryteriów oceny — uzupełniają one wymogi formalne WNE UW i konwencje artykułów referencyjnych.
State clearly: "Uruchamiam thesis-reviewer w trybie [Standard/Hostile/Viva]. Zakres: [pełna praca/sekcja X]."
Deploy the appropriate agent(s) using the Agent tool. Provide each agent with:
Mode → Agent(s) to dispatch:
Standard → wne-supervisor-agent (+ bibliography-checker-wne in parallel if bib provided)
Hostile → hostile-reviewer-agent
Viva → viva-examiner-agent
Comprehensive → all three + bibliography-checker-wne, simultaneously in parallel
Bibliography → bibliography-checker-wne only
For bibliography-checker-wne: provide the full reference list and the in-text citation sample. Do not pass the full thesis text — it does not need it.
For single-mode: present the agent's output directly, with a brief synthesis note at the top.
For Standard mode with bibliography: present wne-supervisor-agent output first, then the bibliography audit as a separate section at the end.
For Comprehensive mode: present all outputs in sequence (Standard → Hostile → Viva → Bibliography), with a one-paragraph synthesis that identifies the highest-priority issues across all perspectives.
After presenting the report, the user may ask "jak to naprawić?" for specific findings. When this happens:
thesis-editor's job)All review findings are evaluated against three simultaneous standards, in descending authority:
1. WNE UW formal requirements (Załącznik B — non-negotiable):
2. WNE UW content requirements for licencjat:
3. Reference paper conventions (Fałkowski & Lewkowicz):
Note: Reference papers are journal articles — ceiling, not floor. Flag deviations only when a WNE supervisor would plausibly flag them.
Do not produce a generic report. Every finding must be specific to this thesis — with a location, a concrete description, and a justification tied to WNE requirements or reference paper conventions.
Do not soften findings to be encouraging. The skill exists to pre-empt the promotor's criticism.
Do not confuse hostile reviewer with hostile tone. Mode 2 is rigorous and specific, not dismissive.
Do not recommend edits without being asked. The report is the primary output; remediation is secondary.3b:["$","$L40",null,{"content":"$41","frontMatter":{"name":"thesis-reviewer","description":"Run this skill when the thesis is close to submission-ready and you want a final review or defence simulation. Triggers on: 'czy praca jest gotowa do oddania?', 'co powie promotor?', 'zrob recenzje', 'sprawdz jak wyglada od zewnatrz', 'co jeszcze moze mi promotor wytknac', 'przejrzyj jak recenzent', 'symuluj obrone'. Requires quality rubric from thesis-reference-calibrator. Four modes: Standard review (WNE promotor simulation), Hostile reviewer (three weakest points), Viva simulation (6 defence questions), Bibliography check. Always respond in the same language the user writes in.","metadata":{"version":"1.0","pipeline_position":"STAN 5 — after thesis-editor; final review before submission"}}}]