Triage a literature-radar digest: judge each candidate against what this project is actually doing, and queue only what earns it.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add Misaka16384/magi --skill radar_review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Radar Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/misaka16384-radar-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: radar_review
description: "Triage a literature-radar digest: judge each candidate against what this project is actually doing, and queue only what earns it."
commands:
radar_review: "Triage the pending radar digest."
origin: magi
---
# radar_review
## When to use
`magi radar status` reports a digest waiting, or `magi next` says so.
## Method
1. `magi radar status --json`, then read the digest.
2. Read the project first: `magi stats wiki-summary` and the open
propositions in `threads/`. Relevance is to what is asked here, not the field.
3. Score each candidate by hand. The digest's score is a **rank, not a
measurement**, and a project with no vector index has none at all — then the
order carries nothing and every candidate has to be read.
4. `magi search "<title>"` before keeping one: a paper the project already
covers is not new information, it is a duplicate.
5. `magi radar triage --id <id> --decision accept|dismiss`, ids from the
digest and `--id` repeatable when the decision is the same. Never hand-edit
the frontmatter — the triage ledger is what the next run reads.
6. Accepted papers: `magi ingest url "<id>"` to queue them, then hand off to
the `ingest` skill.
7. `magi radar triage --done` closes the report and prints how many of how many
you decided. Until you run it, `sync` and `next` keep reporting it.
## Rules
- **Never** accept a paper because it scored well. The score orders the
reading; the judgement is yours and it is the whole point of this step.
- **Each candidate is its own question.** Judge it against the project, not
against your reasoning about the ones before it: twenty in, that reasoning is
the loudest thing in context and the least relevant, and the bar drifts.
- **Never** leave a digest half-triaged without saying so. `--done` prints the
count; say the same thing in your own report, and where you stopped.
- A citation-gap report asks a different question: whether this project *owes*
a citation, not whether the paper is nearby. Most nearby papers are not owed.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!