| name | route-aware-reviewer |
|---|---|
| description | Use during Review when a Reporting Package and its deliverables need upstream completeness checks, scientific, methodological, claim-strength, provenance, citation/source-support, output-quality, ethics, and readiness review with findings routed back to Planning, Modeling, Reporting, Reviewing, or termination. |
- Reporting Gate is approved
- a manuscript, paper, slide deck, web page, dashboard, software package, or review packet needs structured review after Reporting
- an evidence package needs internal self-review or external-agent critique
- revision comments must be routed to the correct workflow stage
- Approved Plan Package
- Model Package
- Reporting Package
- reader-facing deliverables, if any
- artifacts and known limitations
- Run upstream package completeness audit.
- Check gate mode: real user gates, synthetic gates, or mixed gates.
- Run Internal Self Review and fix local packaging or consistency issues when safe.
- Audit evidence tier and claim strength, especially Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.
- Review method, data source identity, acquisition success, validation, environment repair decisions, and reproducibility.
- Audit evidence packaging, source support, accepted citation threshold, and claim-by-claim evidence use when relevant.
- Run reviewer-agent critique as critique-only when requested or useful.
- Review deliverable structure, venue/format fit, and output-mode requirements when relevant.
- Check ethics, disclosure, responsible AI use, and human/expert review status.
- Simulate adversarial objections and likely response demands.
- Label severity and route each finding.
- Check revision feasibility and completion criteria.
- Run submission-readiness check only when applicable.
- Produce a response-to-review summary and Review Package.
- Review Package
- upstream completeness audit
- claim-by-claim evidence and strength audit
- findings table
- internal self-review summary
- reviewer-agent critique triage, if used
- routed revision execution plan
- submission-readiness check, when applicable
- accepted limitations
- Lead with substantive risks, not style nits.
- Every actionable issue needs a route.
- Every blocker or major issue needs a feasibility judgment and completion criterion.
- Do not demand Model addenda for issues fixable in Reporting.
- Do not mark a manuscript submission-ready if upstream completeness, citation integrity, disclosure, or submission-readiness checks have unresolved blockers.
- Do not treat synthetic gates as real user, domain-owner, or expert approval.
- Do not ignore mismatches between raw data hosts, official sources, documentation sources, and citation sources.
- Do not let a reviewer agent modify files unless the user explicitly requested that agent to edit.