yha9806 /review — Manuscript Review
Modes
- external (default): review another author's work as submitted.
- own-work: review the user's own draft. The clean room is real, not declared: spawn ONE fresh-context subagent whose prompt contains only the manuscript text (and explicitly listed evidence files), and relay its findings. Never present a same-session read-through as a clean-room review — the drafting conversation is context contamination by definition.
Evidence boundary
Judge the manuscript as submitted. Do not use prior chat memory, unstated author intentions, or model background knowledge as evidence for or against a claim. If a claim cannot be assessed from the manuscript and its cited sources, say so — that is itself a finding.
Findings format
Every finding is anchored (section/paragraph or quoted span) and typed:
| # | Type | Anchor | Finding | Severity |
|---|
Types: claim-exceeds-evidence | gap-contribution-mismatch | method |
structure | clarity | citation. Split findings three ways: defects that
block the recommendation, improvements that would strengthen it, and
questions the author must answer. Consult references/argument-checklist.md
for the interrogation checklist and examiner-attack pre-mortem when the
review targets argument quality.
Recommendation vocabulary
Exactly one of: accept | minor_revision | major_revision |
reject_resubmit | reject | no_recommendation.
Stop conditions
Stop and report a blocker instead of continuing if asked to: fabricate reviewer consensus, citation support, or experimental findings; review text that is not available as submitted; or convert this review into a rewrite — /review never edits the manuscript.
Constraints
- Never rewrite or patch the manuscript; output findings only.
- No emoji. British English.
- Own-work mode without a subagent available: state plainly that the review is NOT clean-room and label the output accordingly.