/research-review

Role: Principal Investigator (peer review) Pipeline position: mid-chain

Subjects the paper to a peer-review-grade adversarial critique against venue standards — novelty, rigor, reproducibility, clarity, ethics, statistical review, and reporting-guideline conformance. Emits a seven-axis reviewer scorecard plus a severity-triaged required-revision list with concrete-driver rationale per finding. Refute-by-default.

Canonical invocation

/research-review

With arguments:

/research-review [path/to/research-suite/]

Inputs

The paper deliverable at the host-natural location the paper stage recorded.

Outputs

_outputs/review-report.md — the seven-axis reviewer scorecard (novelty · rigor · reproducibility · clarity · ethics · statistical review · reporting-guideline conformance), the severity-triaged (HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW) required-revision list with concrete-driver rationale per finding, the reproducibility-package and re-run verdict, the citation-integrity audit, and the overall accept · minor-revision · major-revision · reject verdict.

Downstream

/research-publish (downstream consumer). A major-revision or reject verdict drives the revision loop back to /research-paper to address the required revisions before re-review.

Workflow phases

The command follows the standard /research pipeline workflow:

1. Load context — Read the paper deliverable.
2. Verify the Sequence Gate — Confirm the paper exists; otherwise halt with Blocked: run /research-paper first.
3. Review adversarially — Score the seven axes (novelty · rigor · reproducibility · clarity · ethics · statistical review · reporting-guideline conformance); run the reproducibility re-run and citation-integrity audit; refute-by-default; locate concrete defects with evidence.
4. Triage revisions — Rank required revisions HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW with concrete-driver rationale.
5. Update the handoff manifest — Record the review report and the scorecard verdict.
6. Emit the review — _outputs/review-report.md.

Rigor floor

The review scores the empirical claims against the advance-gate bar — adequate replication, nonparametric significance with an effect size and critical-difference ranks, and budget parity across compared methods — and treats the verdict as an explicit advance gate: a paper advances only when it beats the venue bar convincingly and significantly, with the clearance logged. Under a double-blind venue the reviewer also flags any identity leak as an anonymization defect.

Failure modes

Examples

# Peer-review the paper and emit a reviewer scorecard
/research-review path/to/research-suite/

Cross-references

• Pipeline overview
• Commands reference