Review Cluster

---
name: review-cluster
description: "Deliver a mid-draft adversarial review of a paper — runs paper-critic + domain-reviewer + claim-verify + blindspot in parallel, optionally adds clarity-reviewer, then auto-synthesises into a prioritised revision plan. Use when the user requests a mid-draft adversarial review of a paper — runs paper-critic + domain-reviewer + claim-verify + blindspot in parallel, optionally adds clarity-reviewer, then auto-synthesises into a prioritised revision plan. Distinct from pre-submission-report (final-gate kitchen sink, 14 checks) — this is the active-drafting feedback loop. Triggers: 'review my draft', 'adversarial review', 'cluster review', 'mid-draft critique', 'feedback before pre-submission'."
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(uv*), Bash(ls*), Bash(git*), Task, Skill, AskUserQuestion
argument-hint: "[paper-path or no-args (auto-detect)] [--clarity] [--no-synthesise]"
agent-dependencies: [paper-critic, domain-reviewer, claim-verify, blindspot, clarity-reviewer]
skill-dependencies: [latex, pre-submission-report, review-packet, strategic-revision, synthesise-reviews, verify-math]
---

# Review Cluster — Mid-Draft Adversarial Feedback

> Parallel fan-out of a 4-agent read-only core on an active-drafting paper, optionally adding clarity-reviewer as a fifth agent, with auto-synthesise downstream. Lighter than `pre-submission-report --parallel`; designed for tight iteration, not final-gate verification. Outputs `reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/YYYY-MM-DD-cluster-report.md` (scope = paper slug from the paper path).

## Output Path

Per `rules/review-artefact-routing.md` (auto-loads in research projects (path-scoped to `paper-*/` and `paper/`)):

- **Source slug:** `review-cluster`
- **Write reports to:** `reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/YYYY-MM-DD.md` (scope = paper slug) inside the project. Path is relative to the research project root, not the Task-Management repo.
- **Never** at project root (`./CRITIC-REPORT.md`-style filenames are forbidden — pre-rule layout).
- **Idempotency:** if today's file exists, append a same-day descriptor (`{date}-revision.md`, `{date}-r2.md`, `{date}-pre-submission.md`) — never overwrite.
- **Index policy:** the consolidated cluster report is an output-only artefact and receives no `Check=review-cluster` row. Each active reviewer receives its own row with `Trigger=review-cluster`.
- **Infrastructure repos** (Task-Management, atlas-workspace, etc.): this section does not apply — the path-scoped rule won't load there.


## Hard Rules

### Existential — block output

1. **All active sub-agents are read-only.** No git, no latexmk, no edits. See `subagent-write-guard.md`.
2. **Auto-synthesise via `synthesise-reviews`** (unless `--no-synthesise`). Mid-draft work needs an actionable revision plan, not 4 raw reports.
3. **Skip if paper isn't compile-ready** — run `latex` first; review on broken builds is misleading. The skill checks compile-status before dispatching.
4. **Cluster is for the user's own papers.** For external papers, use `peer-reviewer` agent instead.
5. **Prepare one common review input.** After compile preflight, invoke `review-packet` in `fresh-review` mode unless the user explicitly supplies a verified packet or requests `--no-freeze-input`. Record the packet archive hash and canonical PDF hash in every reviewer prompt and in the consolidated report. Packet creation itself creates no `reviews/INDEX.md` verdict row.

### Format — catch in review

6. Write one consolidated cluster report at `reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/YYYY-MM-DD-cluster-report.md` (scope = paper slug), in addition to the required per-agent reports and INDEX rows.
7. Findings tiered M/m/n (Major / moderate / minor) per `severity-gradient.md`.
8. Show which sub-agent flagged each finding (audit trail for traceability).
9. **Clarity on request.** With `--clarity` (or when the paper's prior referee reviews contain readability complaints), add `clarity-reviewer` as a 5th parallel agent — reader-experience stall map + the 10 clarity diagnostic classes. Its findings join the synthesis like the others.
10. **Yardstick continuity on repeat runs.** When a prior cluster report exists for the same paper (`reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/`), the new run reuses the prior run's frozen yardstick — same phase banner (severity-gradient), same rubric set, and the prior findings list passed to the agents as "verify addressedness + new issues only", never a fresh re-derivation of criteria from the revised text (scores across rounds must be comparable; a moved yardstick fakes improvement). If the prior report is unavailable or the user explicitly resets the phase, mark the report `[YARDSTICK-REGENERATED: <reason>]` under the phase banner. (Ported from ARS v3.19 re-review protocol, 2026-07-24.)

## When to Use

- Active drafting: paper compiles, content is taking shape, want adversarial feedback before final polish
- Mid-revision: addressed first round of supervisor comments; want fresh perspective before next pass
- Pre-pre-submission: ~2 weeks before submission, want to surface major issues with time to address
- Before sharing draft with co-authors

## When NOT to Use

- Paper is in final pre-submission state — use `pre-submission-report --parallel` (13 sub-agents, full kitchen sink)
- Paper is in early scaffold (introduction only, no method/results) — review will flag everything as missing
- Reviewing someone else's paper — use `peer-reviewer` agent
- R&R revision response — use `strategic-revision --external` instead (genuine venue-comment-driven)

## Modes

| Invocation | Behaviour |
|---|---|
| `review-cluster` | Full 4-agent fan-out + auto-synthesise |
| `review-cluster <paper-path>` | Same, explicit paper |
| `review-cluster --no-synthesise` | Run agents in parallel; show 4 raw reports without merging |
| `review-cluster --clarity` | Add clarity-reviewer as the 5th agent; include its report in stamping and synthesis |
| `review-cluster --no-freeze-input` | Review the live compile-ready source without sealing a packet; record this weaker snapshot regime explicitly |

## Architecture

```
Phase 1 (preflight) → latex compile check + decision-ready manuscript review packet; abort if broken
Phase 2 (dispatch)  → 4 core read-only sub-agents, plus optional clarity-reviewer, in parallel
Phase 3 (math)      → IF theory paper: verify-math on the model section(s) [orchestrator-run skill]
Phase 4 (consolidate) → synthesise-reviews merges (incl. math verdict) → revision plan
Phase 5 (report)    → reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/YYYY-MM-DD-cluster-report.md
```

## The 4-agent core and optional clarity reviewer

| # | Agent | Why this lens |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | **paper-critic** (specialist mode if venue known) | General adversarial — structural issues, argument quality, contribution clarity. Most-cited reviewer in the family. |
| 2 | **domain-reviewer** | Math derivations, assumption completeness, citation fidelity at the substantive level, code-theory alignment. Catches what paper-critic doesn't have the lens for. |
| 3 | **claim-verify** | Citation fidelity at the per-claim level — does what's written about Smith (2024) actually match Smith (2024)? Distinct from bib-validate (existence) and paper-critic (structure). |
| 4 | **blindspot** | Peripheral-vision audit — vices in plain sight + virtues being overlooked. Distinct from adversarial review because it surfaces *missed opportunities*, not just *things to fix*. |
| 5 (optional) | **clarity-reviewer** | Reader-ingestion stress test. Added with `--clarity` or when prior referee reviews contain readability complaints. |

Why these four form the default core:
- **referee2-reviewer** is excluded — it's the *final-stage* hostile review, used in `pre-submission-report`. Mid-draft, hostile review pre-empts genuine improvement.
- **artifact-coherence-auditor / reproducibility-auditor** are excluded — relevant only when the paper is paired with a replication artifact, which is typically a pre-submission concern.
- **code-paper-auditor** is excluded — a separate `code-suite` skill exists for code-side review.
- **proofread** is excluded — editorial issues are too noisy mid-draft; deferred to pre-submission.

### Dispatch contract (evidence-grounded findings)

When dispatching the active reviewer set (Phase 2), each prompt MUST carry the evidence clause from [`_shared/audit-integrity.md`](../_shared/audit-integrity.md): **every finding cites `path:line` (or `§section`) AND quotes the exact text it is about, verbatim** — no quotable anchor, no finding. Phase 4 (`synthesise-reviews`) spot-verifies a sample and **drops** anything it cannot ground, so an agent that emits unanchored findings simply loses them. Tell the agents this up front so they anchor everything.

## Phase 1: Pre-flight

```bash
# Auto-detect paper or use arg
PAPER_PATH="${1:-$(ls -d paper-*/paper 2>/dev/null | head -1)}"
[ -z "$PAPER_PATH" ] && echo "No paper-*/ directory found" && exit 1

# Check compile-readiness — exit if last latex run failed
LATEST_PDF=$(find "$PAPER_PATH/out" -name "*.pdf" -newer "$PAPER_PATH/main.tex" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
if [ -z "$LATEST_PDF" ]; then
    echo "Paper not compiled or stale. Run latex first."
    # the available structured-question mechanism: run latex now, or proceed anyway (risky)?
fi
```

## Phase 2: Dispatch

Construct the active reviewer set as `paper-critic`, `domain-reviewer`, `claim-verify`, and `blindspot`; append `clarity-reviewer` when `--clarity` is set or prior referee reviews contain readability complaints. Launch every active reviewer in a single parallel dispatch. Each gets:

- **Read-only with respect to project files under review** — Read, Glob, Grep, Bash (read-only commands only) against the paper / code being reviewed; the agent does NOT modify any project source files
- **The standard forbid-list** from `subagent-write-guard.md`
- **Paper path** explicitly named
- **Frozen review identity** — the common review-packet path, archive SHA-256, and canonical PDF SHA-256. Reviewers may read the project for anchors, but findings must be compatible with that frozen artifact; if live source has drifted, stop and regenerate the packet.
- **Output target — two-step, both required:**
  1. **Write the per-agent report** to `reviews/<scope>/<source-slug>/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md` (scope = paper slug, source-slug = agent name like paper-critic; run `mkdir -p reviews/<scope>/<source-slug>/` first), then emit the standard stamp directive. The orchestrator-side propagation step appends the durable INDEX row.
  2. **Return a structured findings summary** to the orchestrator for the Phase 4 consolidate step.

  These two outputs are NOT mutually exclusive. The file under `reviews/<source-slug>/` is the durable artefact and triggers the row stamp; the structured return value is the orchestrator's working copy for consolidation. Earlier wording — "not a file write" — was wrong: it suppressed the per-agent logging step and resulted in 0–1 of 4 cluster dispatches stamping a row in INDEX.md. The 2026-05-17 5-agent patch (commit `23ebcfff`) made the agent-side intro unconditional; this dispatch-side fix is the orchestrator-side complement.

Wait for every active reviewer. Do not start Phase 4 (consolidate) until all return.

## Phase 3: Math verification (theory papers only)

The 4-agent fan-out covers the **conceptual** math layer (via `domain-reviewer`, rung R0) but does **not** run the computational verification rungs. For a theory paper, add a `verify-math` pass so the algebra/analytic claims are machine-checked, not just read.

**Detect a theory paper** (any of):
```bash
grep -lE '\\begin\{(theorem|proposition|lemma|corollary)\}' "$PAPER_PATH"/**/*.tex 2>/dev/null
```
If there are no formal environments, skip this phase entirely.

If it IS a theory paper, invoke `verify-math` (via the skill-routing mechanism) scoped to the section(s) holding the model — it decomposes each proposition into atomic obligations and routes them across the spectrum (R0 conceptual · R1 numerical falsification · R2 symbolic/CAS · R3 Lean). `verify-math` is a **skill**, run by this orchestrator in the main session — this is deliberate: the computational rungs (`numerical-check`, `symbolic-check`, `lean-check`) need Bash + sympy/lean, which sub-agents cannot reliably obtain at runtime (the same Bash-grant fragility documented below). The orchestrator always has Bash, so the rungs run here, not inside an agent.

`verify-math` writes its own aggregate report to `reviews/<scope>/verify-math/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md` and stamps its own INDEX.md row (it is a self-stamping skill, like `proofread`). Fold its aggregate verdict — and any `FALSIFIED` obligation — into the Phase 4 synthesis as a high-confidence finding (a machine-falsified claim outranks any single reviewer's concern).

**Avoid double-work:** `domain-reviewer` (agent #2) and `verify-math`'s R0 rung both cover the conceptual layer. When this phase runs, tell `domain-reviewer` in its dispatch prompt that the algebraic identities and comparative-static signs are being machine-verified separately, so it should focus on the conceptual obligations (assumption completeness, citation fidelity, backward logic) rather than re-deriving algebra — see the domain-reviewer "Math R0 Mode" preset.

## Phase 4: Consolidate

If `--no-synthesise`: stop here and show every active reviewer's raw report.

Otherwise, invoke `synthesise-reviews` with every active reviewer's report as input. Output is a prioritised revision plan with:
- Cross-reviewer agreement (claims raised by ≥2 reviewers — high confidence)
- Single-reviewer claims (medium confidence)
- Blindspot virtues (opportunities, not problems — sometimes the most valuable finding)
- Recommended action queue with priority + estimated effort

## Phase 5: Report

Save to `reviews/<scope>/review-cluster/YYYY-MM-DD-cluster-report.md` (scope = paper slug):

```markdown
# Review Cluster Report — YYYY-MM-DD

**Paper:** <path>
**Compile status:** <PASS / WARN / FAIL>
**Review packet:** <path, archive SHA-256, canonical PDF SHA-256>
**Reviewers:** <active reviewer set; include clarity-reviewer when requested>

## Summary
- Major issues (M-tier): N
- Moderate (m-tier): N
- Minor (n-tier): N
- Blindspot virtues (opportunities): N

## Cross-reviewer agreement (high confidence)
| Issue | Severity | Flagged by |
|---|---|---|
| ... | M | paper-critic, domain-reviewer |

## Single-reviewer claims (medium confidence)
[Table by severity]

## Blindspot — virtues + missed opportunities
[Items from #4 sub-agent]

## Recommended action queue
1. [Highest-priority]
2. ...
```

## Cross-References

| Skill / Agent / Rule | Relationship |
|---|---|
| `pre-submission-report --parallel` | Final-gate kitchen sink (14 checks) — this skill is the mid-draft analogue (4-agent core, optional 5th) |
| `review-packet` | Defines and optionally seals the common manuscript decision surface reviewed by every agent |
| `synthesise-reviews` | The merge step this skill invokes |
| `strategic-revision` | After this skill produces a synthesis, optionally hand it to `strategic-revision --internal <synthesis-path>` when interdependent issues need a DAG and critical path |
| `paper-critic`, `domain-reviewer`, `claim-verify`, `blindspot`, optional `clarity-reviewer` agents | The active reviewer set this skill orchestrates |
| `verify-math` | Phase 3 node for theory papers — machine-verifies the math (R1/R2/R3 rungs the agents can't run); self-stamps its own report |
| `code-suite` | Code-side counterpart for projects with code |
| `subagent-write-guard.md` | Sub-agents follow this rule (read-only forbid-list) |
| [`_shared/audit-integrity.md`](../_shared/audit-integrity.md) | Rule 2 (finding-grounding): each reviewer must cite `path:line` + a verbatim quote; the orchestrator spot-verifies a sample before trusting findings |
| `proofread` | Editorial polish — run AFTER cluster review, before pre-submission-report |

## REVIEW-STATE.md propagation (orchestrator-side stamping)

This skill is an **orchestrator** in the REVIEW-STATE.md schema. As of the 2026-05-19 architecture change, the orchestrator (this skill) handles all stamping; sub-agents emit directives but do not call the helper themselves. Every active reviewer ends its final response with a `review-state-stamp` fenced block (see the installed shared resource `_shared/stamp-directive-spec.md`).

### Required orchestrator behaviour

When constructing prompts for the active reviewer set, include this line in each:

> Emit a `review-state-stamp` directive at the end of your final response per the installed shared resource `_shared/stamp-directive-spec.md`. Set `trigger: review-cluster` (or omit — this orchestrator overrides). Do not call the stamping helper yourself.

### After all active reviewers return

For each sub-agent's return:

1. Write the agent's final response to a temp file (`/tmp/review-cluster-<agent>.md`).
2. Parse the directive:
   ```bash
   ARGS=$(bash <skills-root>/_shared/parse-stamp-directive.sh /tmp/review-cluster-<agent>.md)
   ```
   If `parse-stamp-directive.sh` exits non-zero, log a warning ("Agent X return did not contain a review-state-stamp directive") and continue with the next agent — best-effort.
3. **Verify the `.md` report file exists; reconstruct from return content if missing:**
   ```bash
   VERIFY=$(bash <skills-root>/_shared/post-dispatch-verify.sh \
       --return-file /tmp/review-cluster-<agent>.md \
       --project "$PROJECT_ROOT" \
       --agent <agent>)
   # $VERIFY is 'OK <path>' or 'RECONSTRUCTED <path>'.
   # Exit code 10 means reconstruction happened — append a marker to the notes
   # so review-recap shows this row was a recovery, not a real run.
   ```
   If `VERIFY` starts with `RECONSTRUCTED`, append `(report reconstructed by orchestrator — agent skipped Write)` to the `--notes` value before stamping. This guards against the blindspot-class failure mode (agent claims to write but skips the call). See `log/2026-05-21-blindspot-write-fix.md`.
4. Stamp with the orchestrator's `--trigger` override (overriding whatever the agent emitted):
   ```bash
   eval bash <skills-root>/_shared/review-state-log.sh "$ARGS" \
       --trigger review-cluster \
       --source agent \
       --project "$PROJECT_ROOT"
   ```
5. Clean up the temp file.

Every active reviewer's stamp lands in `<project>/reviews/INDEX.md` with the same orchestrator name and roughly the same `Last Run` timestamp, making the cluster visible at a glance. With `--clarity`, this includes the fifth `clarity-reviewer` row.

### Why the orchestrator stamps (not the sub-agent)

Agents have inconsistent Bash tool grants at runtime (the 2026-05-19 harness investigation showed paper-critic and domain-reviewer self-report Bash unavailable despite YAML grants). The orchestrator always has Bash and always runs after the agents return. Moving stamping here decouples it from agent tool-surface uncertainty.

Schema: the installed shared resource `shared/review-state-schema.md`.
Stamp directive format: the installed shared resource `_shared/stamp-directive-spec.md`.

## Anti-Patterns

- **Don't** include `referee2-reviewer` in the cluster — that's the final-stage hostile review, not mid-draft.
- **Don't** run cluster review on a broken build — phase-1 check should abort.
- **Don't** auto-apply fixes from the synthesised report — the report is read-only output. User reviews and dispatches edit-agents (per `subagent-write-guard.md`) separately.
- **Don't** run cluster review on every save — designed for milestone-driven iteration, not continuous integration.