Academic Manuscript Review

Routes a manuscript to an independent, fresh-context reviewer that evaluates it for methodological soundness, statistical validity, logical consistency, and reproducibility, and returns a structured peer review. This skill is a thin dispatcher: it decides how to run the reviewer and in which mode. The review procedure, checklists, statistical and figure guides, principles, and output template all live in references/ and are loaded by the reviewer, not duplicated here.

When to use

Activate when the user wants peer-review feedback on a manuscript (journal article, conference paper, preprint).

Why a fresh-context reviewer

Review validity depends on independence: a reviewer that shares the conversation that produced the manuscript is biased toward it. Run the reviewer in a separate context and pass only framing (manuscript path, target journal, manuscript type, revision status), never the authoring rationale. This is why the reviewer is a subagent on tools that support one, and an inline procedure where they do not.

Modes (user decides each run)

• Single (default): one independent reviewer applies the full procedure end to end.
• Panel (opt-in): spawn independent reviewers in parallel on complementary lenses, then a synthesis pass. Trigger on "review panel", "multiple reviewers", or an explicit request. Lenses: methods/design, statistics, and novelty/significance (add reproducibility for methods-heavy or hardware papers). Each reviewer reads the whole manuscript but weights its lens and scores independently from references/; a final synthesis pass merges them into one Critical/Major/Minor review and surfaces genuine disagreement rather than averaging it away.

Dispatch