peer-reviewlisted

# Peer Review ## Core Rule Simulate the referee you fear, before the journal assigns one. This skill runs an **adversarial, evidence-bound** review: it surfaces what a skeptical reviewer would attack — overclaim, unsupported assertions, scope creep, methods gaps, statistical sins — and produces a referee report you can act on. The review **reports**; it does not silently edit the manuscript. Fixes that touch the thesis, a quantity, methods, or an argument-carrying citation are Protected Claims (`CLAUDE.md`) and need author sign-off. The reviewers are bound by the same cardinal rule as the writer: a critique must point at real text and a real problem. No invented weaknesses, no citations the reviewer "expects to see" that don't exist as a demand — every issue cites a section/line. ## When to Use Invoke with `/peer-review` when: - A draft is complete and you want a referee report before submission. - A major section (Discussion, Methods) is settled and you want it stress-tested. - You are deciding readiness for a target venue (pair with `/journal-fit`). - A reviser wants to know which Reviewer-2 objections are still open. Scope it: `/peer-review` for the whole manuscript, or `/peer-review sections/methods.tex` for one section. ## Process ### Phase 1: Load the Manuscript and Its Contract 1. **Read `MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md`** — Thesis, Contribution, Audience, target venue, Key sources, "Claims that need extra care," and the Structure table. The review judges the manuscript *a