review-paperlisted

<!-- Adapted from pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow (MIT), https://github.com/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --> # Manuscript Review Produce a thorough, constructive review of an academic manuscript — the kind of report a top-journal referee would write. > **Which review skill do I want?** > > - **`/review-paper`** (this skill) — single comprehensive report, optional `--adversarial` critic-fixer loop, or `--peer <journal>` simulated peer-review pipeline. Best for **most drafts**. > - **`/seven-pass-review`** — seven independent lenses in parallel (abstract, intro, methods, results, robustness, prose, citations) then synthesized. Heavier (7× token cost). Best for **submission-ready drafts** or **R&R stage** where you need maximum coverage. > - **`/respond-to-referees`** — if you already have referee comments and need a response document, not another review. > - **`/slide-excellence`** — for lecture slides, not papers. **Input:** `$ARGUMENTS` — path to a paper (`.tex`, `.md`, `.pdf`, `.docx`, `.qmd`, …), or a bare filename to resolve against the project's document directories. Optional flags: - `--adversarial` — critic-fixer loop; runs until a round turns up nothing new (fallback cap: 5 rounds). - `--peer <JOURNAL>` — simulated peer review pipeline calibrated to `<JOURNAL>`. If you maintain `.claude/references/journal-profiles.md` (built from `.claude/templates/journal-profile-template.md`), profiles there are used; otherwise the pipeline calibrates from general norms