Challenge formatting decisions with 5-7 specific questions. Checks section ordering, content placement, missing elements, alternative structures, and compliance gaps.
Critically examine a formatted manuscript and challenge its structural and formatting decisions with 5-7 specific questions.
Philosophy: "We arrive at the best possible submission through active dialogue."
guidelines/[journal].ymlGenerate 5-7 challenges from these categories:
"Would the argument flow better if we moved X before Y?"
"Does this material belong in Methods or Results?"
"Is there a missing transition between these sections?"
"Here are 2 other ways to organise this content for the journal."
"This requirement might not be fully met — here's why."
"This section is disproportionately long. What could be condensed or moved to supplementary?"
"A referee might question this framing. Consider an alternative."
# Devil's Advocate: [Manuscript Title]
## Challenges
### Challenge 1: [Category] — [Short title]
**Question:** [The specific question]
**Why it matters:** [What could go wrong at review/submission]
**Suggested resolution:** [Specific action]
**Sections affected:** [Section names]
**Severity:** [High / Medium / Low]
[Repeat for 5-7 challenges]
## Summary verdict
**Strengths:** [2-3 things done well]
**Critical changes:** [0-2 changes before submission]
**Suggested improvements:** [2-3 nice-to-have changes]