Full manuscript review dispatching 2 blind Referee agents and the Editor agent for editorial decision. Produces referee reports and accept/revise/reject recommendation. Use when asked to "review the paper", "get feedback", or "simulate peer review".
Simulate peer review by dispatching two Referee agents (blind reviewers) and the Editor agent (editorial decision).
Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to paper .tex file. Defaults to output/paper/main.tex.
$ARGUMENTS or output/paper/main.tex.claude/rules/domain-profile.md for field context and target journalsBibliography_base.bib for citation verificationquality_reports/Launch 2 Referee agents simultaneously via Task tool, each with different focus:
Referee 1 (subagent_type: general-purpose, with referee instructions)
You are Referee 1 for a blind peer review. Review [paper.tex].
Score across 5 dimensions:
- Contribution (25%): novelty, importance, gap filled
- Identification (30%): design validity, assumptions, threats
- Data (20%): quality, appropriateness, sample construction
- Writing (15%): clarity, structure, notation
- Journal Fit (10%): appropriate for [target journal from domain-profile]
Provide: summary, detailed comments, recommendation (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject).
Save to quality_reports/referee_1_report.md
Referee 2 (subagent_type: general-purpose, with referee instructions)
You are Referee 2 for a blind peer review. Review [paper.tex].
Same 5-dimension scoring as Referee 1 but independently.
Focus especially on: [alternative concern area — e.g., external validity,
robustness, alternative explanations].
Save to quality_reports/referee_2_report.md
After both Referees return, delegate to the editor agent:
Prompt: You are the Editor reviewing [paper.tex].
Read both referee reports:
- quality_reports/referee_1_report.md
- quality_reports/referee_2_report.md
Make editorial decision:
- Weigh referee recommendations
- Add your own assessment of contribution and fit
- Identify areas of agreement and disagreement between referees
- Make recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject
- If revision: specify which referee points are mandatory vs optional
Save to quality_reports/editorial_decision.md
# Peer Review Report: [Paper Title]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Target Journal:** [from domain-profile]
## Editorial Decision: [Accept / Minor / Major / Reject]
## Referee 1 Summary
- **Overall score:** XX/100
- **Recommendation:** [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject]
- **Key strengths:** [2-3 points]
- **Key concerns:** [2-3 points]
## Referee 2 Summary
- **Overall score:** XX/100
- **Recommendation:** [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject]
- **Key strengths:** [2-3 points]
- **Key concerns:** [2-3 points]
## Editor's Assessment
- **Referee agreement:** [Where they agree, where they disagree]
- **Mandatory revisions:** [List — must address]
- **Optional improvements:** [List — would strengthen]
## Full Reports
- Referee 1: quality_reports/referee_1_report.md
- Referee 2: quality_reports/referee_2_report.md
- Editor: quality_reports/editorial_decision.md