review

What this skill does

# Multi-Agent Editorial Review

Launch a comprehensive multi-agent review of a research paper. The review system uses 8 specialist agents orchestrated by an area chair to evaluate logic, novelty, methodology, prose, citations, and formatting — grounded in literature context.

## Step 1: Read Context

Read `.papermill/state.md` (Read tool) for:
- **Thesis**: What the paper claims (the review checks if the paper delivers).
- **Venue**: Target venue (review against its standards).
- **Review history**: Previous reviews and their findings.
- **Format**: Paper format (latex, markdown, rmarkdown).

If `.papermill/state.md` does not exist, the review can still proceed by reading the manuscript directly — but the review will be less targeted without thesis and venue context. Note this limitation to the user and suggest running `/papermill:init` first for best results.

## Step 2: Identify the Manuscript

Locate the manuscript files:
1. Check `.papermill/state.md` for format and any recorded manuscript path.
2. Scan for manuscript files (Glob tool): `*.tex`, `*.Rmd`, `paper.md`, `manuscript.md`.
3. Identify the main file and any supporting files (bibliography, figures, included files).

Read the manuscript to confirm it has enough content for review.

## Step 3: Ask for Focus Areas

Before launching the review, ask the user:

> I'll launch a multi-agent review with specialists covering:
> - **Logic & proofs** — mathematical correctness and argument structure
> - **Novelty** — contribution evaluation against the literature
> - **Methodology** — experimental design and statistical rigor
> - **Prose** — writing quality and narrative structure
> - **Citations** — reference accuracy and completeness
> - **Formatting** — build verification and venue compliance
>
> Are there specific areas you want me to focus on, or should I run the full review?

If the user specifies focus areas, note them for the orchestrator. If they want the full review, proceed with all specialists.

## Step 4: Launch the Reviewer Orchestrator

Launch the **reviewer** agent (Task tool with `subagent_type: "papermill:reviewer"`).

Pass the agent:
- Path to the manuscript file(s)
- Path to `.papermill/state.md` (if it exists)
- Any user-specified focus areas or tone preferences
- The thesis statement and target venue (if known)

The agent will:
1. Read the paper and produce a comprehension summary
2. Spawn 2 literature scouts in parallel for field context
3. Spawn 6 specialist reviewers in parallel
4. Cross-verify critical findings
5. Write individual specialist reports and a unified report to `.papermill/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD/`

## Step 5: Present Results

After the agent completes, read `.papermill/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD/review.md` (Read tool).

Present a summary to the user:

> **Review Complete**
>
> **Recommendation**: [ready | minor-revision | major-revision | not-ready]
>
> | Severity | Count |
> |----------|-------|
> | Critical | N |
> | Major | M |
> | Minor | P |
> | Suggestions | Q |
>
> **Top findings:**
> 1. [Most important finding]
> 2. [Second most important finding]
> 3. [Third most important finding]
>
> The full report is at `.papermill/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD/review.md`.
> Individual specialist reports are in the same directory.

Then ask: "Would you like to go through the findings in detail, or address the critical issues first?"

## Step 6: Update State File

Update `.papermill/state.md` (Edit tool):

Add a review record to `review_history`:

```yaml
review_history:
  - date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
    type: "multi-agent-review"
    findings_major: N
    findings_minor: M
    recommendation: "ready | minor-revision | major-revision | not-ready"
    notes: "Brief summary of key findings"
    report_path: ".papermill/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD/review.md"
```

Append a timestamped note to the markdown body.

## Step 7: Suggest Next Steps

Based on the recommendation, suggest the most relevant next step:

- **Ready for submission** → `/papermill:polish` to prepare, then `/papermill:venue` if no venue is selected yet.
- **Minor revision** → Address the minor issues, then re-run `/papermill:review`.
- **Major revision** → Address major issues first. If issues are structural, suggest `/papermill:outline`. If issues are with the argument, suggest `/papermill:thesis`. Then re-run `/papermill:review`.
- **Not ready** → Identify the root cause. Weak thesis → `/papermill:thesis`. Insufficient evidence → `/papermill:experiment` or `/papermill:simulation`. Missing related work → `/papermill:prior-art`. Proof gaps → `/papermill:proof`.