review

name: review description: Critical review of thesis sections or chapters. Evaluates scientific rigor, writing quality, logical flow, and citation completeness. Supports section-level (/review X.Y) and chapter-level (/review X) scope.

Thesis Review Skill

Provides structured critical review of thesis prose at two granularities: section-level (quick targeted feedback after drafting) and chapter-level (comprehensive review after all sections are assembled).

When to Use

After /draft X.Y completes — get a second opinion on a section
After all sections of a chapter are drafted — review the full chapter
When revising prose based on supervisor feedback
Before finalizing a chapter for submission

Scope Modes

Section Review (`/review X.Y`)

Targeted review of a single section (e.g., Section 1.2 with all its subsubsections). Fast, focused on scientific content and writing quality within that section.

Input: The section draft file(s) in chapter_XX/sections/ Context: chapter_outline.md, references.md, adjacent section drafts (for transitions)

Chapter Review (`/review X`)

Comprehensive review of an entire chapter. Checks everything a section review does, plus narrative arc, inter-section coherence, and chapter-level argument structure.

Input: All section files in chapter_XX/sections/ Context: outline.md, chapter_outline.md, references.md

Review Dimensions

The review evaluates five dimensions, drawing from scientific-critical-thinking and scientific-writing principles.

1. Scientific Rigor (from `scientific-critical-thinking`)

Claim evaluation: Does evidence support each claim? Are claims appropriately hedged?
Logical flow: Are there logical jumps, non-sequiturs, or circular reasoning?
Fallacy detection: Check for common scientific fallacies — correlation/causation confusion, hasty generalizations, appeal to authority without evidence
Proportionality: Is confidence proportional to evidence strength? Are speculations labeled as such?
Completeness: Are important caveats, alternative explanations, or conflicting results acknowledged?

2. Citation Quality

Coverage: Is every factual claim backed by at least one citation?
Specificity: Are citations to the right papers? (Not just "a review says X" but the original source)
Recency: Are recent key results cited, or is the section relying on outdated references?
Balance: Are opposing viewpoints and alternative interpretations represented?
Provenance: Cross-check against references.md — are the cited bib keys consistent with the reference data table?

3. Writing Quality (from `scientific-writing`)

Clarity: Is the prose clear and unambiguous? Are technical terms defined at first use?
Conciseness: Are there redundant phrases, unnecessary qualifiers, or inflated language?
Precision: Are quantities reported with appropriate precision? Are vague terms avoided?
Flow: Do paragraphs follow topic sentence → supporting evidence → transition?
Tense consistency: Past for completed work/results, present for established facts
Anti-AI patterns: Check against humanizer anti-patterns — rule-of-three, "crucial/pivotal/landscape", copula avoidance, significance inflation

4. Structure & Transitions

Internal coherence: Does the section build a clear argument from start to finish?
Transitions: Are connections between subsubsections explicit and logical?
Section-to-section flow (chapter review only): Does Section X.1 naturally lead to X.2?
Chapter arc (chapter review only): Does the chapter tell a coherent story matching the outline?
Funnel structure: Does the introduction follow the broad → specific → gap → "we will" pattern?

5. Thesis Integration

Outline alignment: Does the content match what chapter_outline.md specified?
Cross-references: Are forward/backward references to other chapters appropriate?
Paper setup (if applicable): Does the chapter properly motivate the inserted paper?
Terminology consistency: Are terms used consistently with earlier/later chapters?

Workflow Steps

Step 1: Load Context

Read outline.md — thesis arc, chapter connections
Read chapter_outline.md — what each section should cover
Read references.md — expected references and their provenance
Read the target draft file(s) in chapter_XX/sections/
For chapter review: read ALL section files in sequence

Step 2: Dimension-by-Dimension Review

For each of the 5 dimensions, produce specific findings:

Quote the problematic text (with section/paragraph reference)
Classify the issue severity:
- 🔴 Critical — scientific error, unsupported claim, or logical flaw
- 🟡 Important — affects quality but not correctness (awkward writing, missing citation, unclear explanation)
- 🟢 Minor — polish-level (word choice, sentence rhythm, formatting)
Explain why it's an issue
Suggest a specific fix or revision

Step 3: Produce Review Report

Output a structured review report saved to the chapter directory.

Section review: chapter_XX/sections/X.Y_review.md Chapter review: chapter_XX/chapter_review.md

# Review Report: [Section X.Y / Chapter X]

## Summary
[2-3 sentence overview of the section/chapter quality]

## Verdict
[Ready / Needs revision / Major gaps]

## Issue Summary
- 🔴 Critical: [count]
- 🟡 Important: [count]
- 🟢 Minor: [count]

## Strengths
- [What works well — be specific]

## Critical Issues (🔴)
### Issue 1: [Title]
- **Location**: Section X.Y.Z, paragraph N
- **Quote**: "[problematic text]"
- **Problem**: [explanation]
- **Suggested fix**: [specific revision]

## Important Issues (🟡)
### Issue N: [Title]
...

## Minor Issues (🟢)
### Issue N: [Title]
...

## Dimension Scores

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Rigor | | |
| Citation Quality | | |
| Writing Quality | | |
| Structure & Transitions | | |
| Thesis Integration | | |

## Recommendations
[Prioritized list of what to address first]

Step 4: Present to User

Present the review report
Highlight the most critical issues
Offer to help fix specific issues (e.g., "want me to revise Section X.Y.Z to address issue #3?")

Integration with Drafting Pipeline

The review skill is designed to slot in after /draft X.Y completes:

/chapter N  →  references.md + chapter_outline.md
/draft X.Y  →  section prose (with self-quality gates)
/review X.Y →  critical review of the section  ← THIS SKILL
iterate on fixes
/review X   →  chapter-level review after all sections done

The self-review in section_drafting Step 7 is a quick internal gate. This /review skill is a deeper, more thorough second pass from a referee perspective.