Review

One review skill, two modes. Both run an independent Codex lane and an independent Hermes lane, keep the two opinions visible and separate, and stay advisory. Neither mode edits manuscript prose, flips claim status, rejects a paper, or launches an experiment. The user decides what to act on.

• adversarial kills the idea by struggle. It commits one strongest-rejection memo per provider, adjudicates each in a fresh independent lane, and a helper maps the rulings to a non-self-graded PASS, WARN, or FAIL. Use it for the single worst-case reviewer argument before submission or rebuttal.
• venue simulates peer review. It runs a venue-calibrated mock review, scores the paper, and gives an accept-or-reject lean, plus optional results-to-claims matrices and experiment plans.

Both modes follow skills/_shared/core/dual-consult-protocol.md. Read it before dispatch.

Pick the mode first

Do not silently default to a mode. Decide as follows:

• If the user's own words already name one mode, honor it and say which you picked. "Kill argument", "worst reviewer argument", and "stress-test to death" mean adversarial. "Mock venue review", "score my paper for ", "second opinion", and "external review" mean venue.
• Otherwise, and for any generic "review my paper", ask with AskUserQuestion. Offer two options:
  • Adversarial (kill argument): one committed worst-case rejection per provider, adjudicated cold, mapped to an advisory verdict. Best right before submission, when the user wants the single argument that sinks the paper.
  • Venue (mock peer review): a program-committee-style review with scores, strengths, weaknesses, questions, and an accept-or-reject lean. Best for a calibrated second opinion and a fix list.

Route to the matching mode section once the user picks.