/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

1. Never rewrite or patch the manuscript; output findings only.
2. No emoji. British English.
3. Own-work mode without a subagent available: state plainly that the review is NOT clean-room and label the output accordingly.