Multi-Agent Editorial Review

Launch a comprehensive multi-agent review of a research paper. The review system uses 8 specialist agents orchestrated by an area chair to evaluate logic, novelty, methodology, prose, citations, and formatting — grounded in literature context.

Step 1: Read Context

Read .papermill/state.md (Read tool) for:

• Thesis: What the paper claims (the review checks if the paper delivers).
• Venue: Target venue (review against its standards).
• Review history: Previous reviews and their findings.
• Format: Paper format (latex, markdown, rmarkdown).

If .papermill/state.md does not exist, the review can still proceed by reading the manuscript directly — but the review will be less targeted without thesis and venue context. Note this limitation to the user and suggest running /papermill:init first for best results.

Step 2: Identify the Manuscript

Locate the manuscript files:

1. Check .papermill/state.md for format and any recorded manuscript path.
2. Scan for manuscript files (Glob tool): *.tex, *.Rmd, paper.md, manuscript.md.
3. Identify the main file and any supporting files (bibliography, figures, included files).

Read the manuscript to confirm it has enough content for review.

Step 3: Ask for Focus Areas

Before launching the review, ask the user:

I'll launch a multi-agent review with specialists covering:

• Logic & proofs — mathematical correctness and argument structure
• Novelty — contribution evaluation against the literature
• Methodology — experimental design and statistical rigor
• Prose — writing quality and narrative structure
• Citations — reference accuracy and completeness
• Formatting — build verification and venue compliance

Are there specific areas you want me to focus on, or should I run the full review?

If the user specifies focus areas, note them for the orchestrator. If they want the full review, proceed with all specialists.

Step 4: Launch the Reviewer Orchestrator

Launch the reviewer agent (Task tool with subagent_type: "papermill:reviewer").

Pass the agent:

• Path to the manuscript file(s)
• Path to .papermill/state.md (if it exists)
• Any user-specified focus areas or tone preferences
• The thesis statement and target venue (if known)

The agent will:

1. Read the paper and produce a comprehension summary
2. Spawn 2 literature scouts in parallel for field context
3. Spawn 6 specialist reviewers in parallel
4. Cross-verify critical findings
5. Write individual specialist reports and a unified report to .papermill/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD/

Step 5: Present Results

After the agent completes, read .papermill/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD/review.md (Read tool).

Present a summary to the user:

Review Complete

Recommendation: [ready | minor-revision | major-revision | not-ready]

Severity	Count
Critical	N
Major	M
Minor	P
Suggestions	Q

Top findings:

1. [Most important finding]
2. [Second most important finding]
3. [Third most important finding]

The full report is at .papermill/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD/review.md. Individual specialist reports are in the same directory.

Then ask: "Would you like to go through the findings in detail, or address the critical issues first?"

Step 6: Update State File

Update .papermill/state.md (Edit tool):

Add a review record to review_history:

review_history:
  - date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
    type: "multi-agent-review"
    findings_major: N
    findings_minor: M
    recommendation: "ready | minor-revision | major-revision | not-ready"
    notes: "Brief summary of key findings"
    report_path: ".papermill/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD/review.md"

Append a timestamped note to the markdown body.

Step 7: Suggest Next Steps

Based on the recommendation, suggest the most relevant next step:

• Ready for submission → /papermill:polish to prepare, then /papermill:venue if no venue is selected yet.
• Minor revision → Address the minor issues, then re-run /papermill:review.
• Major revision → Address major issues first. If issues are structural, suggest /papermill:outline. If issues are with the argument, suggest /papermill:thesis. Then re-run /papermill:review.
• Not ready → Identify the root cause. Weak thesis → /papermill:thesis. Insufficient evidence → /papermill:experiment or /papermill:simulation. Missing related work → /papermill:prior-art. Proof gaps → /papermill:proof.