Review Paper

• --adversarial — critic-fixer loop (max 5 rounds).
• --peer <JOURNAL> — simulated peer review pipeline calibrated to <JOURNAL> (see .claude/references/journal-profiles.md for available short names).
• --r2 / --r3 — R&R continuation mode (requires --peer). Reloads prior round, classifies concerns Resolved / Partial / Not addressed.
• --stress — hostile-editor stress test (requires --peer). Forces SKEPTIC dispositions, doubles critical peeves.
• --no-novelty-check — skip editor's WebSearch novelty probe (default is ON).
• --no-cross-artifact — skip auto-invocation of /review-r + /audit-reproducibility on referenced scripts.

Already received referee comments? Use /respond-to-referees instead. That skill cross-references each referee concern against the revised manuscript and drafts a complete response document.

Modes

Default mode (single-pass)

One comprehensive review report. Fast, low token cost, suitable for early drafts where the author wants feedback and will iterate manually.

Adversarial mode (--adversarial)

Iterative critic-fixer loop modeled on /qa-quarto. The critic identifies issues, the fixer proposes and applies edits (with user approval), and the critic re-audits. Loops until APPROVED or max 5 rounds.

Use when: preparing a pre-submission draft, responding to a journal-desk rejection with substantive revisions, or after your own major rewrite. Costs more tokens but produces a manuscript the critic has signed off on.

Peer-review mode (--peer <JOURNAL>)

Simulated editorial pipeline: editor desk review → referee selection → 2 blind referees with different dispositions → editorial synthesis. Calibrated to a target journal from .claude/references/journal-profiles.md. Use when: pre-submission dress rehearsal, choosing between target journals, R&R planning.

This mode is materially different from --adversarial: adversarial runs the same critic 5× with fresh context; --peer runs different personas (editor + 2 dispositioned referees drawn from 6-way taxonomy: STRUCTURAL / CREDIBILITY / MEASUREMENT / POLICY / THEORY / SKEPTIC) whose priors are deliberately different and who are blind to each other.

Agents used (all reimplemented in this template; adapted from Hugo Sant'Anna's clo-author with permission):

• .claude/agents/editor.md — editor (desk review, referee selection, synthesis).
• .claude/agents/domain-referee.md — substance referee.
• .claude/agents/methods-referee.md — methodology referee (paper-type-aware).

Sub-flags:

• --r2 / --r3 — R&R mode. Skips fresh desk review; reloads prior round's reports; same referees + dispositions + peeves; classifies each prior concern as Resolved / Partial / Not addressed. Hard cap at --r3 (no round 4+).
• --stress — Hostile editor. Forces both referees to SKEPTIC disposition, doubles critical peeves, framing: "you are looking for reasons to reject this paper." Output is a concern-list gauntlet, not a decision letter.
• --no-novelty-check — Disables the editor's WebSearch novelty probes (default is ON). Use in offline or hallucination-sensitive contexts. Novelty-check caveat (document this to users): WebSearch can return hallucinated citations or miss paywalled recent work. Always surface novelty-probe results as flags for manual verification, not verdicts.

Steps (both modes)

1. Locate and read the manuscript. First strip flags (--adversarial, --no-cross-artifact) from $ARGUMENTS to get the bare manuscript path. Check:

   • Direct path (bare path from step 1)
   • master_supporting_docs/supporting_papers/$ARGUMENTS
   • Glob for partial matches

2. Read the full paper end-to-end. For long PDFs, read in chunks (5 pages at a time).

3. Evaluate across 6 dimensions (see below).

4. Generate 3–5 "referee objections" — the tough questions a top referee would ask.

5. Produce the review report.

6. Save to quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name]_round[N].md (N=1 in default mode; N increments in adversarial mode).

6b. Cross-artifact integration. Unless $ARGUMENTS contains --no-cross-artifact, and if the manuscript references analysis scripts (detected via \input{scripts/...}, %% source: comments, or matching scripts/R/_outputs/ filenames), auto-invoke:

• /review-r on each referenced script (forked subagent, results to quality_reports/cross_artifact_[paper]/review_r_*.md)
• /audit-reproducibility on the manuscript + outputs dir (results to quality_reports/cross_artifact_[paper]/reproducibility.md)

Merge critical cross-artifact findings (code bug invalidates paper claim, reproducibility FAIL) into a new "Cross-Artifact Findings" section at the top of the paper review report. See .claude/rules/cross-artifact-review.md for the full protocol.

7. If --adversarial is in $ARGUMENTS: invoke the critic-fixer loop defined in the next section. Otherwise stop here.

Review Dimensions

1. Argument Structure

• Is the research question clearly stated?
• Does the introduction motivate the question effectively?
• Is the logical flow sound (question → method → results → conclusion)?
• Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?
• Are limitations acknowledged?

2. Identification Strategy

• Is the causal claim credible?
• What are the key identifying assumptions? Are they stated explicitly?
• Are there threats to identification (omitted variables, reverse causality, measurement error)?
• Are robustness checks adequate?
• Is the estimator appropriate for the research design?

3. Econometric Specification

• Correct standard errors (clustered? robust? bootstrap?)?
• Appropriate functional form?
• Sample selection issues?
• Multiple testing concerns?
• Are point estimates economically meaningful (not just statistically significant)?

4. Literature Positioning

• Are the key papers cited?
• Is prior work characterized accurately?
• Is the contribution clearly differentiated from existing work?
• Any missing citations that a referee would flag?

5. Writing Quality

• Clarity and concision
• Academic tone
• Consistent notation throughout
• Abstract effectively summarizes the paper
• Tables and figures are self-contained (clear labels, notes, sources)

6. Presentation

• Are tables and figures well-designed?
• Is notation consistent throughout?
• Are there any typos, grammatical errors, or formatting issues?
• Is the paper the right length for the contribution?

Output Format

# Manuscript Review: [Paper Title]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Reviewer:** review-paper skill
**File:** [path to manuscript]

## Summary Assessment

**Overall recommendation:** [Strong Accept / Accept / Revise & Resubmit / Reject]

[2-3 paragraph summary: main contribution, strengths, and key concerns]

## Strengths

1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
3. [Strength 3]

## Major Concerns

### MC1: [Title]
- **Dimension:** [Identification / Econometrics / Argument / Literature / Writing / Presentation]
- **Issue:** [Specific description]
- **Suggestion:** [How to address it]
- **Location:** [Section/page/table if applicable]

[Repeat for each major concern]

## Minor Concerns

### mc1: [Title]
- **Issue:** [Description]
- **Suggestion:** [Fix]

[Repeat]

## Referee Objections

These are the tough questions a top referee would likely raise:

### RO1: [Question]
**Why it matters:** [Why this could be fatal]
**How to address it:** [Suggested response or additional analysis]

[Repeat for 3-5 objections]

## Specific Comments

[Line-by-line or section-by-section comments, if any]

## Summary Statistics

| Dimension | Rating (1-5) |
|-----------|-------------|
| Argument Structure | [N] |
| Identification | [N] |
| Econometrics | [N] |
| Literature | [N] |
| Writing | [N] |
| Presentation | [N] |
| **Overall** | **[N]** |

Principles

• Be constructive. Every criticism should come with a suggestion.
• Be specific. Reference exact sections, equations, tables.
• Think like a referee at a top-5 journal. What would make them reject?
• Distinguish fatal flaws from minor issues. Not everything is equally important.
• Acknowledge what's done well. Good research deserves recognition.
• Do NOT fabricate details. If you can't read a section clearly, say so.

Adversarial Mode — Critic-Fixer Loop

Only runs if --adversarial is in $ARGUMENTS.

Pattern adapted from /qa-quarto, which uses the same loop to iterate on slide quality. Papers get it now because the single-pass review leaves authors doing manual fix-and-resubmit cycles.

Flow

Phase 0: Pre-flight
  │
  ├─ Verify the manuscript compiles (xelatex / quarto render) if applicable
  ├─ Snapshot the pre-review version: git stash OR copy to a .review-backup/
  │
Phase 1: Critic audit (round N=1,2,3,...)
  │
  ├─ Run the default review above, producing a round-N report
  ├─ If the report has ZERO Major Concerns and ZERO Referee Objections
  │  rated "fatal":
  │     → VERDICT = APPROVED. Stop the loop. Write final summary.
  │  Else: continue.
  │
Phase 2: Fixer
  │
  ├─ For each Major Concern in the round-N report, produce a concrete
  │  proposed edit (diff or new text block).
  ├─ Present proposed edits to the user grouped by severity (Critical →
  │  Major → Minor). Ask for approval: "apply all", "apply critical+major
  │  only", "review each", or "abort".
  ├─ Apply approved edits with Edit / Edit tools.
  ├─ If the manuscript is a compile target (`.tex` / `.qmd`), re-compile
  │  and verify it still builds.
  │
Phase 3: Re-audit
  │
  └─ Spawn a FRESH-CONTEXT subagent (via Task, `subagent_type` set to
     general-purpose) to re-read the paper and produce a round-(N+1)
     report. Fresh context prevents anchoring bias — the new reviewer
     sees the edited paper, not the diff.
     → Jump back to Phase 1.

Iteration limits

• Max 5 rounds. After round 5, halt regardless of verdict.
• Fix round limits: if the same Concern label appears in rounds N and N+2, flag as "author disagreement" and let the user decide (keep-as-is with rationale vs. another fix attempt).
• Budget escape: if token cost across all rounds exceeds ~200k, warn and let the user cap further rounds.

Stopping criteria

Final report

After the loop ends, write quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name]_FINAL.md:

# Final Review: [Paper Title]

**Rounds:** N
**Verdict:** APPROVED | HALTED (max rounds) | HALTED (user override) | ROLLED BACK
**Token cost estimate:** ~XXk

## Round Summary
| Round | Major Concerns | Fatal Objections | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 2 | Fixed 5, deferred 2 |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | ...              |
| ... | ... | ... | ...         |
| N | 0 | 0 | APPROVED        |

## Changes Applied
[link to git diff between the pre-round-1 snapshot and HEAD]

## Remaining Concerns (if HALTED)
[list with severity + rationale]

## Next Steps
[recommended action: submit / one more pass / substantial revision]

When NOT to use adversarial mode

• Early exploratory drafts (the loop forces premature polish on ideas still being shaped)
• Papers you don't yet have compilable source for (can't verify edits)
• When you'd rather get ONE opinion and decide for yourself (adversarial-mode enforces "critic signed off" semantics — that's sometimes the wrong frame)

--peer [journal] workflow detail

Phase 0: Cross-artifact pre-flight (runs BEFORE desk review in --peer mode)

Unless --no-cross-artifact is set, auto-invoke /audit-reproducibility on the manuscript + its outputs directory first. Any reproducibility FAIL becomes desk-reject-worthy evidence the editor can cite. See .claude/rules/cross-artifact-review.md.

Reports: quality_reports/cross_artifact_[paper]/reproducibility.md.

Novelty-probe Post-Flight (new in v1.7.0). The editor's novelty probe uses WebSearch to check whether the paper's contribution has been made before. WebSearch results can be hallucinated — fabricated prior work, misattributed findings, wrong years. Before the editor's desk review incorporates novelty-probe claims into its decision, those claims must pass Post-Flight Verification per .claude/rules/post-flight-verification.md:

1. The editor collects novelty-probe claims (e.g., "Smith 2022 already showed this exact result").
2. Spawn claim-verifier via Task with subagent_type=claim-verifier and context=fork, passing the claims + verification questions + candidate source URLs. Forked fresh context is the CoVe independence trick.
3. Only verified claims are allowed into the desk-review narrative. Unverified claims are surfaced separately as "editor could not verify — manual check recommended" rather than presented as established prior work.

Opt-out: --no-novelty-check already skips the probe entirely. If the probe runs, Post-Flight is mandatory.

Pre-Flight Report (required before Phase 1). Before spawning the editor, output a Pre-Flight Report so the user can verify the inputs are read correctly:

## Pre-Flight Report — /review-paper --peer

**Manuscript:** [path] — [page count, last modified]
**Target journal:** [JOURNAL_SHORT] → [full name from `.claude/references/journal-profiles.md`]
**Journal profile loaded:** [yes/no; resolved from `.claude/references/journal-profiles.md`; key adjustments: e.g., "Identification 35 → 40"]
**Cross-artifact scripts found:** [list referenced .R / .py / .do files]
**Reproducibility status:** [PASS / FAIL from Phase 0] — [N of M claims within tolerance]
**Round:** [fresh / r2 / r3 / stress]

If the manuscript path doesn't exist, the target journal isn't in .claude/references/journal-profiles.md, or a cross-artifact script is missing, stop and surface the issue before proceeding.

Phase 1: Editor desk review

Spawn forked subagent editor with the manuscript path and --peer <JOURNAL> context. Editor:

• Reads journal profile from .claude/references/journal-profiles.md → states "Calibrated to: [journal]".
• Reads abstract + intro + methods overview + headline results.
• Runs novelty probes (unless --no-novelty-check).
• Either DESK REJECT (pipeline terminates with rejection letter) or SEND OUT.

Report: quality_reports/peer_review_[paper]/desk_review.md.

Phase 1b: Referee selection (inside editor)

Editor draws 2 DIFFERENT dispositions from journal's Referee-pool weights and assigns each referee 1 critical + 1 constructive peeve (stress mode: 2 critical + 1 constructive). Appended to desk_review.md.

Phase 2: Two parallel referees, blind to each other

Spawn in parallel:

• Forked subagent domain-referee with disposition D1, peeves P1 → referee_domain.md.
• Forked subagent methods-referee with disposition D2, peeves P2 → referee_methods.md.

Each referee must include "What would change my mind: [specific ask]" on every MAJOR concern.

Phase 3: Editor synthesis

Read both referee reports. Classify each MAJOR concern as FATAL / ADDRESSABLE / TASTE. Produce editorial decision using the decision rule table in editor.md.

Report: quality_reports/peer_review_[paper]/editorial_decision.md.

Phase 4: Summary

Tell the user:

• Final decision (Accept / Minor / Major / Reject / Desk Reject)
• Token usage + wall-clock time
• Paths to all 4 reports (desk_review, referee_domain, referee_methods, editorial_decision)

Output layout for --peer mode

quality_reports/
  peer_review_[sanitized_paper_name]/
    desk_review.md                       # Phase 1 + Phase 1b
    referee_domain.md                    # Phase 2 (parallel)
    referee_methods.md                   # Phase 2 (parallel)
    editorial_decision.md                # Phase 3
    (R&R rounds: desk_review_r2.md, referee_domain_r2.md, ...)
  cross_artifact_[sanitized_paper_name]/
    reproducibility.md                   # Phase 0
    review_r_*.md                        # Phase 0 (one per referenced script)

Field adaptation

The shipped journal-profiles.md covers 5 econ journals (AER, QJE, JPE, ECMA, ReStud). For other fields (finance, political science, biology, CS, etc.), copy templates/journal-profile-template.md into a new section of journal-profiles.md and fill in the schema. See the "Field adaptation" section at the end of journal-profiles.md for detailed guidance. The pipeline itself is field-agnostic; only the calibration data changes.

For non-econ paper types in methods-referee.md, extend the paper-type list (e.g., biology: observational / experimental / computational / review).