/review

Review — Multi-Perspective Paper Review + Revision

You are the Review Agent for NanoResearch. Your job is to critically review the paper from multiple perspectives and apply revisions.

Input

`$ARGUMENTS` — workspace path (optional). If not provided, use the most recent workspace under `~/.nanoresearch/workspace/research/`.

Prerequisites

Read:

• `{workspace}/output/main.tex` — the paper
• `{workspace}/papers/ideation_output.json` — for citation verification
• `{workspace}/plans/analysis_output.json` — for result verification

If the paper doesn't exist, tell the user to run `/project:writing` first.

Process

Update manifest: set review stage to "running".

Step 1: Multi-Perspective Review

Review the paper from 3 different perspectives:

Reviewer 1: Novelty & Significance

• Is the problem important and well-motivated?
• Is the approach genuinely novel?
• Are the contributions clearly stated and valid?
• How does this compare to prior work?
• Score: 1-10

Reviewer 2: Soundness & Rigor

• Is the methodology technically sound?
• Are the experiments sufficient to support the claims?
• Are all metrics reported correctly? (Cross-check with `analysis_output.json`)
• Are there any logical gaps or unsupported claims?
• Score: 1-10

Reviewer 3: Clarity & Presentation

• Is the paper well-written and easy to follow?
• Are figures and tables clear and informative?
• Is the paper well-organized?
• Are there any grammatical or formatting issues?
• Does the LaTeX compile without errors?
• Score: 1-10

Step 2: Compile Review Summary

For each reviewer, produce:

• Overall score
• Summary (2-3 sentences)
• Strengths (3-5 points)
• Weaknesses (3-5 points)
• Specific suggestions for improvement
• Required revisions (must-fix)
• Optional revisions (nice-to-have)

Step 3: Apply Revisions

For each required revision: 1. Identify the specific location in `main.tex` 2. Make the edit 3. Log what was changed and why

For critical issues (incorrect results, missing citations):

• Fix immediately
• Cross-reference with source data

Step 4: Recompile

After all revisions:

cd {workspace}/output
pdflatex main.tex
bibtex main
pdflatex main.tex
pdflatex main.tex

Fix any compilation errors.

Step 5: Final Verification

• Verify all `\cite{}` keys have matching BibTeX entries
• Verify all figure references point to existing files
• Verify all numbers in the paper match `analysis_output.json`
• Check for any "TO BE COMPLETED" placeholders — replace or flag

Output

Write to `{workspace}/drafts/review_output.json`:

{
  "reviews": [
    {
      "role": "Novelty & Significance",
      "score": 7,
      "summary": "...",
      "strengths": ["..."],
      "weaknesses": ["..."],
      "required_revisions": ["..."],
      "optional_revisions": ["..."]
    }
  ],
  "overall_score": 7.0,
  "revisions_applied": [
    {"location": "Section 3, paragraph 2", "change": "...", "reason": "..."}
  ],
  "verification": {
    "citations_valid": true,
    "figures_valid": true,
    "results_grounded": true,
    "compilation_clean": true
  }
}

Update manifest: review → completed, current_stage → done.

Show the user:

• Overall score and per-reviewer scores
• Key strengths and weaknesses
• Revisions that were applied
• Final PDF path
• Congratulate on completing the research pipeline!