Review Paper

v1.1 — Pre-submission self-review combining econ-native evaluation with adversarial stress testing

Simulate a rigorous peer review of an academic manuscript before submission. Combines economics-specific review criteria (identification strategy, econometric specification) with a Devil's Advocate stress test and editorial synthesis.

Argument: $ARGUMENTS

• Path to a paper file (.pdf, .tex, .qmd, .md, .docx)
• Or a project name (will look for the paper in the project's standard locations)

Modes (append to argument):

• full (default) — 3-pass review: Econ Referee + Devil's Advocate + Editorial Synthesis
• quick — Single-pass referee report only (skip DA and synthesis)
• methodology — Deep dive on identification and econometrics only
• da-only — Devil's Advocate stress test only (skip balanced review)

Example: /review-paper ~/Dropbox/Github/bd-social-norms/paper/main.tex full Example: /review-paper dep-dts quick

---

Instructions

Step 0: Locate and Read the Paper

1. If $ARGUMENTS contains a file path, read that file directly
2. If $ARGUMENTS is a project name, check these locations in order:
   • ~/Dropbox/Github/[project]/paper/
   • ~/Dropbox/Github/[project]/manuscript/
   • ~/Dropbox/Github/[project]/draft/
   • Glob for *.tex, *.pdf, *.qmd, *.docx in the project repo
3. For PDFs, read in chunks (5 pages at a time). For LaTeX, read the main file and any \input{} files.
4. Read the full paper end-to-end before starting any review pass.

Parse the mode from $ARGUMENTS. Default to full if not specified.

5. Load the reference file review-paper-references/real-referee-patterns.md via the Skill tool. This contains calibration patterns from real referee reports at top journals — use it to ground the review in how actual referees write and what they prioritize.

Step 1: Econ Referee Pass

Think like a referee at a top-5 economics journal (AER, QJE, Econometrica, JPE, REStud). Evaluate across these 6 dimensions:

1.1 Argument Structure

• Is the research question clearly stated and well-motivated?
• Does the introduction establish the question's importance in 2-3 paragraphs?
• Is the logical flow sound (question -> literature -> method -> results -> conclusion)?
• Are conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
• Are limitations acknowledged honestly?

1.2 Identification Strategy

• Is the causal claim credible? What is the source of exogenous variation?
• Are the key identifying assumptions stated explicitly?
• Threats to identification: omitted variables, reverse causality, measurement error, selection, spillovers, SUTVA violations?
• For RCTs: randomization quality, compliance, attrition, balance, pre-analysis plan adherence?
• For quasi-experimental: parallel trends, exclusion restriction, first-stage strength, bandwidth sensitivity?
• Is the estimator appropriate for the research design (TWFE concerns with staggered adoption, etc.)?
• Implementation fidelity (for program evaluations): Was the program delivered as designed? Do deviations (delays, mistargeting, short duration) limit what the paper can claim? Is the paper evaluating the program-as-designed or program-as-implemented?

1.3 Econometric Specification

• Standard errors: clustered at the right level? Robust? Few-cluster corrections needed?
• Functional form: appropriate? Sensitivity to alternatives?
• Sample selection: any concerns about conditioning on post-treatment variables?
• Multiple testing: how many hypotheses tested? Any corrections?
• Are point estimates economically meaningful (magnitude, not just statistical significance)?
• Heterogeneity analysis: pre-specified or exploratory? Appropriate corrections?
• Power: is the study adequately powered for the effects being detected (or not detected)? For null results, report MDEs — what effect sizes can be ruled out?
• Mechanism evidence: Does the paper provide positive evidence for the claimed mechanism, or only rule out alternatives? Suggest specific heterogeneity analyses that would discriminate between competing explanations.
• Cost-benefit (for interventions): Is return on investment discussed? Even back-of-envelope cost per unit of outcome is valuable.

1.4 Literature Positioning & Framing

• Are the key papers in this area cited?
• Is prior work characterized accurately and fairly?
• Is the contribution clearly differentiated from existing work?
• Any missing citations a referee would flag?
• Is the paper positioned in the right literature (not just the convenient one)?
• Framing breadth: Could the paper be framed more broadly? Narrow framing undersells the contribution. Avoid "first paper to..." claims — they're debatable and shrink the scope. Help the author see the biggest defensible question their paper answers.
• Does the intro explain what the results mean for the existing literature, not just that the paper "contributes to" it?

1.5 Writing Quality

• Clarity and concision (economics papers should be tight)
• Abstract effectively summarizes question, method, findings, and contribution
• Consistent notation throughout
• Tables and figures are self-contained (clear labels, notes, sources, sample sizes)
• Appropriate length for the contribution

1.6 Presentation & Data Transparency

• Are summary statistics presented and discussed?
• Balance tables (for RCTs)? Do they show treatment and control means separately (not just the difference)? Randomization inference? Joint test?
• Are variable definitions clear and documented? For composite indices, are the components listed?
• Is the data section informative about sample construction?
• Are results presented clearly (coefficient, SE, significance, N)?
• Are all tables/figures referenced in the text?
• Admin vs. self-reported data: If both exist, are both shown? Are discrepancies discussed as a data quality signal?
• Table parsimony: Can ITT and IV be consolidated (one in main tables, one in appendix)? Can related tables be combined?
• Self-reported outcomes: Are table titles explicit when outcomes are self-reported?
• Robustness to controls: Is there an appendix showing results without baseline controls?
• Displacement/GE effects: For labor market papers, is this discussed alongside main results (not just in the conclusion)?

Rate each dimension 1-5 (1 = major problems, 5 = excellent).

Generate 3-5 referee objections — the tough questions a top referee would ask. For each:

• State the objection clearly
• Explain why it could be fatal or damaging
• Suggest how the author could address it

If mode = quick or methodology: Write the review report (see output format below) and stop here. For methodology, focus only on dimensions 1.2 and 1.3.

---

Step 2: Devil's Advocate Stress Test

Skip if mode = quick or methodology.

Switch perspective entirely. You are no longer a balanced reviewer — you are an adversarial critic whose job is to find every vulnerability. This is separate from Step 1; do not repeat the same points.

Run these 8 challenges:

2.1 Core Thesis Challenge

Construct the strongest possible argument against the paper's main conclusion. Write 200-300 words making the case that the paper is wrong.

2.2 Cherry-Picking Detection

• Are results selectively reported? Are there specifications that were likely run but not shown?
• Does the paper emphasize its strongest results while burying weaker ones?
• Is the sample definition suspiciously convenient for the results?

2.3 Confirmation Bias Scan

• Does the paper only cite evidence supporting its hypothesis?
• Are contradictory findings from other studies discussed?
• Is the theoretical framework chosen because it predicts the "right" result?

2.4 Logic Chain Validation

Trace the argument from assumptions through to conclusions. Identify any point where the chain breaks or requires an unstated leap.

2.5 Overgeneralization Check

• Do the results generalize beyond the specific sample/context studied?
• Does the paper claim more generality than the evidence supports?
• External validity: would this hold in other countries/time periods/populations?

2.6 Alternative Explanations

List 2-4 alternative explanations for the main results that are not adequately ruled out. For each, explain what additional evidence would distinguish the author's story from the alternative.

2.7 Stakeholder Blind Spots

• Whose perspective is missing from the analysis?
• Are there distributional effects or welfare implications not discussed?
• Would practitioners/policymakers interpret these results differently than the authors intend?

2.8 "So What?" Test

• If the results are exactly right, what changes? Who acts differently?
• Is the contribution incremental or transformative?
• Does the paper answer a question people are actually asking?

Classify each finding as:

• CRITICAL: Fatal flaw in core argument — cannot be rescued without fundamental revision
• MAJOR: Seriously undermines credibility but can be addressed with additional analysis/writing
• MINOR: Worth noting but does not affect core argument
• OBSERVATION: Not a defect, but an alternative perspective worth considering

If mode = da-only: Write the Devil's Advocate report and stop here.

---

Step 3: Editorial Synthesis

Only runs in full mode.

Now step back and synthesize Steps 1 and 2 into an editorial decision. Think like an editor making a desk decision.

3.1 Consensus Analysis

• Where do the referee evaluation and Devil's Advocate agree? (These are the strongest signals.)
• Where do they disagree? (The DA may have been too harsh, or the referee too generous.)
• Which DA findings are genuine threats vs. hypothetical concerns unlikely to bother a real reviewer?

3.2 Decision

Based on the synthesis:

• Strong Accept: Excellent across all dimensions, DA found only minor/observation-level issues
• Accept with Minor Revision: Strong paper, 1-2 addressable issues, no DA critical findings
• Revise and Resubmit: Good potential, but 2+ major issues or 1 DA critical finding that can be addressed
• Reject: Fundamental identification/argument problems that cannot be fixed with revision

3.3 Revision Roadmap

Organize all findings into a prioritized action list:

• Priority 1 (Required): Must fix before submission — fatal or near-fatal issues
• Priority 2 (Strongly Recommended): Will significantly strengthen the paper
• Priority 3 (Nice to Have): Polish items, additional robustness checks, framing improvements

---

Step 4: Write the Report

Save the full report to the working directory as review_[sanitized_paper_name]_[YYYY-MM-DD].md.

Tell the user the full path to the output file.

---

Output Format

# Manuscript Review: [Paper Title]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Mode:** [full / quick / methodology / da-only]
**File reviewed:** [path to manuscript]
**Reviewer:** /review-paper skill v1.0

---

## Summary Assessment

**Overall recommendation:** [Strong Accept / Accept with Minor Revision / Revise and Resubmit / Reject]

[2-3 paragraph summary: main contribution, key strengths, and central concerns. Be direct.]

---

## Econ Referee Report

### Dimension Scores

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Key Issue |
|-----------|:-----------:|-----------|
| Argument Structure | | |
| Identification Strategy | | |
| Econometric Specification | | |
| Literature Positioning | | |
| Writing Quality | | |
| Presentation & Data | | |
| **Overall** | **[avg]** | |

### Strengths

1. [Strength — be specific, cite sections/tables]
2. [...]
3. [...]

### Major Concerns

#### MC1: [Title]
- **Dimension:** [which of the 6]
- **Issue:** [specific description]
- **Suggestion:** [how to address it]
- **Location:** [section/page/table]

[Repeat for each major concern]

### Minor Concerns

#### mc1: [Title]
- **Issue:** [description]
- **Suggestion:** [fix]

[Repeat]

### Referee Objections

#### RO1: [The tough question]
**Why it matters:** [why this could be fatal or damaging]
**How to address it:** [suggested response or additional analysis]

[Repeat for 3-5 objections]

---

## Devil's Advocate Report

*(Only in `full` and `da-only` modes)*

### Strongest Counter-Argument
[200-300 words. The single best case that the paper's conclusion is wrong.]

### Critical Findings
[Any CRITICAL-severity issues. If none, state "No critical findings."]

### Major Findings
[MAJOR-severity issues with challenge number (2.1-2.8)]

### Minor Findings & Observations
[Brief list]

### Alternative Explanations Not Ruled Out
1. [Alternative — what evidence would distinguish it]
2. [...]

---

## Editorial Synthesis

*(Only in `full` mode)*

### Consensus Points
[Where referee and DA agree — these are the most important signals]

### Areas of Disagreement
[Where DA was harsher than the referee assessment warrants, or vice versa]

### Decision Rationale
[2-3 sentences explaining the recommendation]

### Revision Roadmap

#### Priority 1: Required Before Submission
- [ ] [Action item with specific guidance]
- [ ] [...]

#### Priority 2: Strongly Recommended
- [ ] [Action item]
- [ ] [...]

#### Priority 3: Nice to Have
- [ ] [Action item]
- [ ] [...]

---

## Specific Comments

[Section-by-section or line-by-line comments, if any. Include page/paragraph references.]

---

Principles

• Be constructive. Every criticism comes with a suggestion. The goal is to make the paper better, not to tear it down.
• Be specific. Reference exact sections, equations, tables, page numbers.
• Think like a top-5 referee. What would make them recommend rejection? What would make them enthusiastic?
• Distinguish fatal flaws from polish. Not everything is equally important. Prioritize.
• Acknowledge what's done well. Good research deserves recognition. Acknowledge difficulty of execution: "Successful evaluations of government programs are very challenging."
• Economics-specific lens. Identification, not just "methodology." Economic significance, not just statistical significance. Credibility revolution standards.
• Be honest about uncertainty. If you're unsure whether data exists, say so: "I don't know if this data exists, but..."
• Offer choices, not mandates. For presentational suggestions, give the author latitude: "I would leave it to you to decide."
• Framing advice is a gift. When a paper is framed too narrowly, suggesting a broader frame helps the author — it's not a criticism.
• Do NOT fabricate. If you cannot read a section clearly, say so. Do not invent details about the paper.
• Do NOT hallucinate citations. If you suggest missing references, flag that the user should verify they exist.