review-paper

name: review-paper description: Comprehensive manuscript review covering identification strategy, econometric specification, citation fidelity, and potential referee objections. Delegates to the domain-reviewer agent. disable-model-invocation: true argument-hint: "[paper filename or path to .tex/.pdf]" allowed-tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob", "Write", "Task"]

Manuscript Review

Produce a thorough, constructive review of an academic manuscript — the kind of report a top-journal referee would write.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to a paper (.tex, .pdf, or .qmd).

Steps

1. Locate and read the manuscript. Check:

   • Direct path from $ARGUMENTS
   • manuscript/ directory
   • Glob for partial matches

2. Launch the domain-reviewer agent to perform the substantive review:

   • The agent reviews through 5 lenses: identification, derivation, citation fidelity, code-theory alignment, and backward logic
   • It saves its report to quality_reports/

3. Supplement the agent's review with these additional checks:

   Writing Quality

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

   Literature Positioning

   • Are the key papers cited?
   • Is prior work characterized accurately?
   • Is the contribution clearly differentiated from existing work?

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

5. Produce the combined review report and save to quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md

Output Format

# Manuscript Review: [Paper Title]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**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]

## Major Concerns

### MC1: [Title]
- **Dimension:** [Identification / Econometrics / Argument / Literature / Writing]
- **Issue:** [Specific description]
- **Suggestion:** [How to address it]

## Minor Concerns

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

## Referee Objections

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

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.
• Acknowledge what's done well.