/review-paper

description: >
  Simulate a double-blind peer review of the current paper. Generates 2 independent
  reviewer reports in the style of top IS/CS conferences (ICIS, ECIS, MISQ level).
  Each report includes Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Minor Comments, and Overall
  Recommendation. Output is saved as simulated_reviews.md and can be fed directly
  into /respond-reviewers for systematic revision.

Review Paper: **$ARGUMENTS**

Activate the **peer-review-engine** skill. Read `skills/peer-review-engine/SKILL.md` in full.

Execute the complete 6-step simulated peer review workflow:

1. **LOCATE & READ** the paper (draft.md or paper.tex — use the most recent version) 2. **ASSESS** against 7 evaluation dimensions (contribution, theory, method, literature, argumentation, writing, relevance) 3. **GENERATE Reviewer 1** — "The Methodologist" (focus: research design, rigor, validity, replicability) 4. **GENERATE Reviewer 2** — "The Theorist" (focus: contribution, positioning, theoretical depth, novelty) 5. **CALIBRATE** recommendations independently (do not harmonize reviewers) 6. **COMPILE & SAVE** to `simulated_reviews.md` with meta-reviewer summary and priority revision checklist

Input

`$ARGUMENTS` can be:

• **Empty** — reviews the most recent draft (draft.md or paper.tex, whichever is newer)
• **File path** to a specific manuscript (e.g., `@draft_v2.md`, `@latex/paper.tex`)
• **Venue name** to calibrate review criteria (e.g., `ICIS`, `MISQ`, `ECIS`, `NeurIPS`)
• **"journal"** or **"conference"** to adjust review depth and tone accordingly

Output

• `simulated_reviews.md` — 2 complete reviewer reports + meta-reviewer synthesis
• Each review: Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Minor Comments, Questions, Recommendation
• Priority revision checklist (ordered by impact)
• Ready for `/respond-reviewers simulated_reviews.md` to process feedback systematically