---
name: review-pr-prose
description: Simulated peer review panel for manuscript prose. Spins discipline-specific agents for multi-perspective review.
disable-model-invocation: false
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: [pr-number] (defaults to the current branch's open merge request)
context: fork
---

# Review PR prose $ARGUMENTS — simulated peer review panel

> **TASK DIRECTIVE — execute now.** You are running `/review-pr-prose` on PR
> `$ARGUMENTS` (a PR number, optionally followed by `worktree=<path>`). This
> file is your operating procedure, not reference documentation: start the
> setup immediately. If `worktree=<path>` is present, `cd` into that path
> before any git or forge command — forked sub-skills do not inherit the caller's
> cwd. If `$ARGUMENTS` does not contain a PR number, do NOT infer a task
> from the environment (worktree name, git status snapshot, ticket files, or
> the shared task list) — resolve the missing *argument* from the forge
> instead: query the forge CLI for the open merge request attached to the
> current branch; if exactly one exists, announce "reviewing PR #N (<title>)
> — resolved from branch <branch>" and proceed. If that yields nothing or
> several, list the actual open merge requests and STOP so the user can pick
> from real candidates. Never suggest a fabricated example number — an
> invented "e.g. #N" anchors the user into re-invoking on the wrong PR
> (2026-06-10: exactly that burned a five-agent panel on an already-merged
> PR while the intended target sat unreviewed).

Spin disciplinary agents in parallel, each in a fresh context, each pinned to
**`model: sonnet`** (reviewers below the coder tier — rules/workflow.md;
an unpinned Agent inherits the session model and silently runs the fan-out at
top tier). Prose review reads **full text**, not just diff.

## Setup

1. Identify the text: which `.qmd`/`.md` files changed? What is the target venue?
2. Read the diff of the merge request.
3. Recruit the panel: select agents appropriate for the venue and scope of changes. Always include an adversarial referee. Add a journal-specific expert if venue rules exist (check project rules).

## Each agent runs

1. Read the **full text** (not just the diff).
2. Report **confidence** + **severity** (major / minor / suggestion).
3. Verdict: **accept**, **minor revision**, or **major revision**.

Agents with relevant expertise should use available tools (web search for literature, linting tools if installed, etc.).

## AI-tells auditor (always included)

One agent is always the **AI-tells auditor**. It reads `config/ai-tells.yml` for blacklisted words, phrases, conditional words, density limits, and patterns to flag. It scans the full text (not just the diff) and reports every violation with line number, context, and severity. This agent has no other role — it is a specialized lint pass.

## Editorial-brief auditor (when present)

If the project defines an editorial brief at `docs/editorial-brief.md`, one agent is the **editorial-brief auditor** (pinned `model: sonnet` like the rest of the panel). Skip silently when the file is absent — this check is project-specific and optional (skills degrade gracefully).

The skill owns the schema, projects own the content. Expected brief format — one standing decision per entry, each entry carrying:

- a decision title;
- **Decision:** one sentence;
- **Rationale:** one or two sentences;
- **Ticket:** originating ticket reference.

The auditor reads the brief plus the manuscript diff and reports a per-entry verdict table:

| Entry | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| decision title | upheld / violated / not touched by this diff | line ref, or "not in diff" |

Violations must cite the line. This agent has no other role — its table goes verbatim into the Synthesis step.

## Synthesis

1. Preserve dissent verbatim.
2. Group findings: major (blocks acceptance), minor (should fix), suggestion.
3. Deduplicate convergent findings.
4. Build the manuscript. Check consistency between prose and data.
5. Post a single review on the merge request.

## Minor/suggestion tags (mandatory)

Every minor or suggestion item in the posted review carries exactly one prefix:

| Prefix | Meaning |
|---|---|
| `verifiable:` | A reproducible check is attached (line-number citation against the text, numeric recheck, lint rule violation). Reviewer can confirm without re-reading the paragraph. |
| `consider:` | Hypothesis or taste call. No enforcement. Author may dismiss. |
| `nofollow:` | Noted but not pursued (out of venue, already handled elsewhere, deliberate stylistic choice). No action expected. |

Rules:
- Hedged prose like "readers may find X confusing" without a concrete pointer is forbidden. Either cite the line and the confusable construction (`verifiable:`) or downgrade to `consider:`.
- Majors are not tagged; tags are for the minor/suggestion tier only.
- The tag set is shared with `/review-pr` and `/verify-gate`. Keep all three in sync.

## Proportional depth

| Text change | Panel size |
|---|---|
| Typo, citation fix | Copy editor only |
| Section rewrite | 3 agents (domain + adversarial + copy) |
| Full paper draft | Full panel (5-6 agents) |
| Submission-ready | Full panel + response-to-reviewers template |