# brycewang-stanford--Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research--skills__15-Felpix-Studios-social-science-research__skil

> Manuscript Review

- Skill: `qhjqhj00/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-re-75` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add qhjqhj00/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-re-75`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/qhjqhj00/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-re-75/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: qhjqhj00 (https://skillmd.com/u/qhjqhj00)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/qhjqhj00/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-re-75

---


# 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), or a filename in `manuscripts/` or `references/papers/`.

---

## Steps

1. **Locate and read the manuscript.** Check:
   - Direct path from `$ARGUMENTS`
   - `manuscripts/$ARGUMENTS`
   - `references/papers/$ARGUMENTS`
   - Glob for partial matches in `manuscripts/` and `references/papers/`

2. **Read the full paper** end-to-end. For long PDFs, read in chunks (5 pages at a time).

3. **Dispatch `domain-reviewer` agent** via Task for deep substance review (see below).

4. **Evaluate writing quality and presentation** (dimensions 5-6) — the skill handles these directly since the agent explicitly does not cover presentation.

5. **After the agent completes**, merge its findings with your writing/presentation evaluation. Generate 3-5 "referee objections" synthesized from both.

6. **Produce the unified review report.**

7. **Save to** `quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md`

---

## Step 3: Dispatch Domain-Reviewer Agent

Dispatch the `domain-reviewer` agent via Task for the deep substance check. The agent applies 5 lenses that go deeper than broad dimensional evaluation — actual equation verification, derivation step checking, code-theory alignment, and backward logic tracing.

```
Task prompt: "You are the domain-reviewer agent. Review the manuscript at [path].
Research question: [from spec if available].

Apply all 5 review lenses:
1. Assumption stress test
2. Derivation verification
3. Citation fidelity
4. Code-theory alignment
5. Backward logic check

Also check cross-document consistency.
Follow the domain-reviewer agent instructions and return your full substance review report."
```

After the agent completes, collect its findings. These feed into the "Major Concerns" and "Referee Objections" sections of the final report.

---

## Steps 4-5: Skill Evaluates Writing & Presentation, Then Merges

The skill evaluates dimensions 5-6 directly (the agent does not cover these), then merges everything into the unified report format below.

---

## Review Dimensions

### 1. Argument Structure
- Is the research question clearly stated?
- Does the introduction motivate the question effectively?
- Is the logical flow sound (question → method → results → conclusion)?
- Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?
- Are limitations acknowledged?

### 2. Identification Strategy
- Is the causal claim credible?
- What are the key identifying assumptions? Are they stated explicitly?
- Are there threats to identification (omitted variables, reverse causality, measurement error)?
- Are robustness checks adequate?
- Is the estimator appropriate for the research design?

### 3. Econometric Specification
- Correct standard errors (clustered? robust? bootstrap?)?
- Appropriate functional form?
- Sample selection issues?
- Multiple testing concerns?
- Are point estimates economically meaningful (not just statistically significant)?

### 4. Literature Positioning
- Are the key papers cited?
- Is prior work characterized accurately?
- Is the contribution clearly differentiated from existing work?
- Any missing citations that a referee would flag?

### 5. Writing Quality
- Clarity and concision
- Academic tone
- Consistent notation throughout
- Abstract effectively summarizes the paper
- Tables and figures are self-contained (clear labels, notes, sources)

### 6. Presentation
- Are tables and figures well-designed?
- Is notation consistent throughout?
- Are there any typos, grammatical errors, or formatting issues?
- Is the paper the right length for the contribution?

---

## Output Format

```markdown
# Manuscript Review: [Paper Title]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Reviewer:** review-paper skill
**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]
3. [Strength 3]

## Major Concerns

### MC1: [Title]
- **Dimension:** [Identification / Econometrics / Argument / Literature / Writing / Presentation]
- **Issue:** [Specific description]
- **Suggestion:** [How to address it]
- **Location:** [Section/page/table if applicable]

[Repeat for each major concern]

## Minor Concerns

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

[Repeat]

## Referee Objections

These are the tough questions a top referee would likely raise:

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

[Repeat for 3-5 objections]

## Specific Comments

[Line-by-line or section-by-section comments, if any]

## Summary Statistics

| Dimension | Rating (1-5) |
|-----------|-------------|
| Argument Structure | [N] |
| Identification | [N] |
| Econometrics | [N] |
| Literature | [N] |
| Writing | [N] |
| Presentation | [N] |
| **Overall** | **[N]** |
```

---

## 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.** Not everything is equally important.
- **Acknowledge what's done well.** Good research deserves recognition.
- **Do NOT fabricate details.** If you can't read a section clearly, say so.