Proposal Review

Content review only. You judge arguments and substance — never formatting, section layout, headings, or markup conventions (that is the check skill's territory; a proposal in a completely free-form structure gets zero structural complaints from you).

What to assess

Read references/guidelines.md (plus any workspace guidelines.md overrides) for the semantic rules, then review:

• Research questions — analytical rather than implementation goals ("how can X be built" is the classic failure), self-contained, answerable by the chosen methodology, non-overlapping, not yes/no.
• Contribution delta — is the difference to prior work stated explicitly and precisely, or does the section read as a feature list? Are claims grounded in cited literature, or do vendor/commercial sources carry scientific weight?
• Argument soundness — introduction motivates without overreaching; no repetition between sections; the methodology actually answers each research question; evaluation measures what the RQs ask.
• Single methodology — mixed methods (e.g. prototype plus full user study) get flagged with a scope-down suggestion.
• Sharpness — vague language, unnecessary information, inconsistencies between sections, scope risks for the thesis level (Bachelor vs Master).
• Missing substance — absent literature areas, missing information a supervisor would ask about.

Output

Write <slug>-review.md next to the proposal (overwrite a previous review), in the proposal's lang: