global-reviewer

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

1 scriptsChecked / no sensitive code detected

Global consistency review for survey drafts: terminology, cross-section coherence, and scope/citation hygiene. Writes `output/GLOBAL_REVIEW.md` and (optionally) applies safe edits to `output/DRAFT.md`. **Trigger**: global review, consistency check, coherence audit, 术语一致性, 全局回看, 章节呼应, 拷打 writer. **Use when**: Draft exists and you want a final evidence-first coherence pass before LaTeX/PDF. **Skip if**: You are still changing the outline/mapping/notes (do those first), or prose writing is not approved. **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: Do not invent facts or citations; do not add new citation keys; treat missing evidence as a failure signal.

1installs

Sourcewilloscar/research-units-pipeline-skills

Added on2026-02-14

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add willoscar/research-units-pipeline-skills global-reviewer

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Global Reviewer (survey draft)

Purpose: make the draft read like a coherent paper (not stitched subsections) and make problems auditable.

Role cards (use explicitly)

Consistency Reviewer (auditor)

Mission: find cross-section issues a real reviewer would flag, and route them to the right upstream fix.

Do:

Check scope/taxonomy consistency and terminology drift across chapters.
Flag underspecified claims (numbers without task/metric/constraint).
Treat missing evidence as a failure signal; route upstream.

Avoid:

Writing around gaps by adding new claims or citations.

Coherence Editor (bridge finder)

Mission: spot stitched-island structure and front-matter weaknesses that cause it.

Do:

Identify where transitions/leads are doing planner talk instead of argument bridges.
Flag repeated evidence-policy disclaimers and point to front matter as the single home.

Avoid:

Style-only nitpicks that do not change readability or verifiability.

Role prompt: Consistency Reviewer (AI paper reviewer mindset)

text

You are a meticulous reviewer for a survey manuscript.

Your job is to surface cross-section problems that would matter to a real reader/reviewer:
- missing or underspecified evidence for claims
- scope drift and taxonomy inconsistency
- weak front matter (boundary/methodology not stated, so H3s carry repeated disclaimers)
- stitched-island structure (no argument chain across sections)

Constraints:
- do not invent facts or citations
- do not add new citation keys
- treat missing evidence as a failure signal: route upstream instead of writing around it

Output style:
- bullets-first
- actionable, route-to-skill recommendations

This is not “polish for style”. It is a contract check:

do claims align to evidence/citations?
do sections connect via a consistent lens?
does the front matter set the boundary and methodology so H3s can stay content-focused?

Inputs

```
output/DRAFT.md
```

Context (read-only; used to avoid drift):

```
outline/outline.yml
```
```
outline/taxonomy.yml
```
```
outline/mapping.tsv
```
```
outline/claim_evidence_matrix.md
```
```
citations/ref.bib
```

Outputs

```
output/GLOBAL_REVIEW.md
```
(bullets-first report; always written)
```
output/DRAFT.md
```
(optional safe edits; only when edits are low-risk)

Non-negotiables

No invented facts.
No invented citations.
Do not add/remove citation keys.
Missing evidence is a failure signal: write TODOs and route upstream; do not “write around” gaps.

What this skill owns (and what it does not)

Owns:

Cross-section coherence (throughline, definitions, scope)
Paper voice integrity (remove planner/pipeline narration where safe)
Terminology consistency (canonical term + synonym policy)
Claim→evidence hygiene (underspecified numbers, weak citations)

Does not own:

Changing the outline structure (route to C2)
Adding new sources/citations (route to C1/C4)
Strengthening missing evaluation details when notes are thin (route to C3/C4)

Workflow (use the context files explicitly)

Check structure against
```
outline/outline.yml
```

Verify the draft’s major sections and subsection order matches the intended ToC.
Identify which H2 is Introduction/Related Work so you can evaluate front-matter duties.

Check scope vocabulary against
```
outline/taxonomy.yml
```

Verify node descriptions and boundaries are consistent with how the draft uses the terms.
Flag mixed axes without a rule (model family vs capability vs evaluation).

Check coverage signals via
```
outline/mapping.tsv
```

Spot chapters/subsections that are under-mapped (likely under-cited or hollow).
Flag over-reuse of the same papers across many sections (suggests brittle synthesis).

Spot-check claims using
```
outline/claim_evidence_matrix.md
```

Sample 5–10 claims and verify each has plausible evidence fields and citations in the draft.
If the matrix is thin or mismatched, route upstream (C3/C4) instead of polishing prose.

Sanity-check citation keys against
```
citations/ref.bib
```

Flag undefined keys or suspicious naming (e.g., “GPT-5”) unless the cited work uses that label.

Report format (required)

output/GLOBAL_REVIEW.md

must be bullets-first and contain these headings verbatim (so gates can verify them):

## A. Input integrity / placeholder leakage

```
## B. Narrative and argument chain
```
```
## C. Scope and taxonomy consistency
```

## D. Citations and verifiability (claim -> evidence)

```
## E. Tables and structural outputs
```

Include a top line:

```
- Status: PASS
```
(or
```
- Status: OK
```
) only after all blocking issues are addressed.

What to check (high-value, paper-like)

A. Input integrity / placeholder leakage

Look for:

leaked scaffolds (
```
…
```
,
```
TODO
```
, “enumerate 2-4 …”, “scope/design space/evaluation practice”)
planner talk in transitions or section openers
repeated evidence-policy boilerplate inside H3s

Action:

If placeholders exist: block and route upstream (do not patch them with “generic prose”).
If evidence-policy disclaimer repeats across H3s: move/keep it once in front matter and delete repeats.

B. Narrative and argument chain

Goal: every section does an argument move.

Check:

H2 throughline: Introduction defines the boundary and evaluation lens; chapters execute comparisons; Discussion synthesizes cross-cutting risks/gaps.
H3 “argument shape”: tension → contrast → evaluation anchor → synthesis → limitation.
“Generator voice”: narration templates (
```
This subsection ...
```
) and slide navigation (
```
Next, we ...
```
).

Action (safe edits allowed):

Replace navigation sentences with argument bridges (no new facts).

Bad:

```
Next, we move from planning to memory.
```

Better:

Planning specifies how decisions are made; memory determines what information those decisions can reliably condition on under a fixed protocol.

C. Scope and taxonomy consistency

Check:

Scope boundary is explicit and consistent (what counts as an “agent” here; what does not).
Taxonomy nodes match the paper’s claims (no mixed axes without a rule).
No silent drift (e.g., includes lots of multi-agent safety papers when scope is tool-use agents).

Action:

If scope drift is structural: route to C2 (tighten outline + mapping).
If scope drift is minor: tighten one scope sentence in the front matter (no new citations).

D. Citations and verifiability (claim -> evidence)

Write a small claim-evidence table (5–10 rows):

claim | section | citations | evidence_field | evidence_level

Flag:

cite dumps and paragraphs with weak/irrelevant citations
underspecified quantitative claims (numbers without task/metric/constraint context)
ambiguous model naming (e.g., “GPT-5”) unless the cited paper uses that label

Action:

If you can clarify context without new facts (e.g., “under a fixed budget/tool access”), do so.
Otherwise: mark as TODO and route to C3/C4 (paper notes / evidence packs).

E. Tables and structural outputs

Check:

Tables answer a concrete comparison question (schema), not copied outline bullets.
Rows contain citations.

Action:

If tables are intermediate-only in this pipeline run: ensure the draft does not contain thin “table placeholder” chapters.

Recommended fix order (routing)

When the report finds issues, recommend the smallest fix path:

Placeholder leakage / thin packs -> C3/C4 (

paper-notes

→

evidence-draft

→

anchor-sheet

→

writer-context-pack

)

Section voice/template problems -> C5 local rewrite (
```
writer-selfloop
```
/
```
subsection-polisher
```
/
```
draft-polisher
```
)
Citation scope drift -> C2/C4 (
```
section-mapper
```
/
```
evidence-binder
```
) then rewrite the affected sections

Global unique citations too low ->

citation-diversifier

→

citation-injector

(then

draft-polisher

)

Safe edits allowed (optional)

If and only if edits are low-risk and do not change citation keys:

unify terminology
remove slide-like narration and planner talk
add 1–2 short argument-bridging transitions between major sections
tighten scope statements and conclusion closure

Script

This skill includes a deterministic helper script that generates a gate-compliant

output/GLOBAL_REVIEW.md

from the current draft and context (no invented facts/citations).

Quick Start

python .codex/skills/global-reviewer/scripts/run.py --help

python .codex/skills/global-reviewer/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

All Options

```
--workspace <dir>
```
```
--unit-id <U###>
```
(optional; for logs)
```
--inputs <semicolon-separated>
```
(rare override; prefer defaults)

--outputs <semicolon-separated>

(rare override; default writes

output/GLOBAL_REVIEW.md

)

```
--checkpoint <C#>
```
(optional)

Examples

Generate a global review after merging a draft:

python .codex/skills/global-reviewer/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

Freeze policy:

If you hand-edit the review and want to freeze it, create
```
output/GLOBAL_REVIEW.refined.ok
```
to prevent overwrites.

Notes:

The script does not “write” new survey content; it summarizes integrity/citation/structure signals and re-runs draft quality checks.

Troubleshooting

Issue: review flags missing citations / undefined keys

Fix:

Run

citation-verifier

and ensure

citations/ref.bib

contains every cited key in

output/DRAFT.md

.

Issue: review suggests changes that would add new claims

Fix:

Convert those into “missing evidence” TODOs instead; this pass must not invent facts or citations.

global-reviewer

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Global Reviewer (survey draft)

Role cards (use explicitly)

Consistency Reviewer (auditor)

Coherence Editor (bridge finder)

Role prompt: Consistency Reviewer (AI paper reviewer mindset)

Inputs

Outputs

Non-negotiables

What this skill owns (and what it does not)

Workflow (use the context files explicitly)

Report format (required)

What to check (high-value, paper-like)

A. Input integrity / placeholder leakage

B. Narrative and argument chain

C. Scope and taxonomy consistency

D. Citations and verifiability (claim -> evidence)

E. Tables and structural outputs

Recommended fix order (routing)

Safe edits allowed (optional)

Script

Quick Start

All Options

Examples

Troubleshooting

Issue: review flags missing citations / undefined keys

Issue: review suggests changes that would add new claims