Referee Report

This writes .katz/review_data.json containing:

• Paper metadata (title, source, sections, sentence count)
• Issue counts by state (confirmed, rejected, open, draft)
• All confirmed issues with full details and investigation notes
• All open/uncertain issues with details
• Section-level summary statistics

Read the output file to understand the full scope of the review.

2. Read the manuscript

Read the abstract and introduction from the canonical manuscript to understand the paper's contribution and framing. Use katz paper section <id> to get line ranges, then read the relevant portions.

3. Write the referee report

Write the report as markdown to .katz/referee_report.md. Follow this structure:

Header

# Referee Report: [Paper Title]

**Date:** [today]
**Paper:** [source file]
**Review method:** Automated multi-model review via katz, with manual investigation

Summary (1 paragraph)

One paragraph summarizing what the paper does, its main contribution, and its overall quality. Be specific about the methodology and findings — do not be generic.

Overall Assessment (2–3 paragraphs)

Your high-level evaluation. Address:

• Is the research question well-motivated?
• Is the methodology appropriate for the claims?
• Are the results convincing?
• What is the paper's main strength?
• What is the paper's main weakness?

Ground every judgment in specific evidence from the review. Do not make claims you cannot trace to a confirmed issue or a reading of the manuscript.

Major Concerns

List the confirmed issues that represent substantive problems — things that should be addressed before publication. Group them thematically, not by section. Each concern should:

• State the problem clearly in 1–2 sentences
• Reference the specific manuscript location (section, line range)
• Explain why it matters for the paper's contribution
• Suggest a path to resolution where possible

Typical themes to group by:

• Unsupported claims — conclusions stronger than the evidence
• Internal inconsistencies — numbers, descriptions, or claims that conflict
• Methodological concerns — design choices that could bias results
• Missing information — details needed for reproducibility or evaluation

Do NOT list every confirmed issue individually if several point to the same underlying concern. Synthesize them into a coherent narrative. Reference the underlying issue IDs in parentheses for traceability, e.g., (issues 00b5b04c, 0e02ab37).

Minor Concerns

Confirmed issues that are real but less consequential — unclear writing, small inconsistencies, presentation issues. These can be listed more briefly. Again, group by theme rather than listing individually.

Open Questions

Any uncertain/open issues that the authors could clarify. Frame these as questions, not accusations.

Positive Observations (optional)

If the review revealed strengths — e.g., many overclaiming flags were rejected because the paper hedges carefully, or the methodology is sound against multiple challenges — note these. Reviewers who only list problems are less useful than those who also identify what works.

4. Verify and finalize

Re-read the report. Check:

• Every major concern traces to at least one confirmed issue
• No confirmed issue is omitted without reason
• The tone is constructive and professional
• The report would be useful to the authors, not just the editor
• The summary accurately reflects the paper (re-read the abstract if needed)

Report the path to the finished file.