Reviewer Stress Test

Before final verdict, require the user to state:

• The key difference between this work and the most similar prior works.
• Preferably top-3 nearest works with one-line distinctions.

If this is missing, mark novelty confidence as limited.

Review dimensions

Challenge from multiple angles:

• Problem framing and significance
• Novelty and non-triviality
• Technical soundness
• Experimental rigor (baselines, ablations, statistics)
• Reproducibility and implementation feasibility
• Failure modes, robustness, ethics/bias scope

Output contract

Return structured sections:

1. Overall risk verdict (acceptance risk band + confidence)
2. Major concerns (rejection-level)
3. Minor concerns
4. Nearest-work gap check
5. Repair paths (for each major concern: minimum actionable steps)
6. Re-review checklist (what evidence would change verdict)

Tone and fairness guardrails

• Be rigorous, specific, and evidence-based.
• Do not use dismissive or insulting phrasing.
• Every major concern should include at least one feasible repair action.

Non-goals

• Not for open-ended idea expansion.
• Not for broad roadmap generation from scratch.

Independence

This skill can be used independently and does not depend on outputs from idea-focus-coach or research-brainstorm-from-kb. Users can directly bring a formed idea, roadmap, or paper draft into stress testing.