Skip to content

/seven-pass-review

Category: review
Field: economics
License: MIT
Updated: 2026-04
Stages: referee-simulation

Seven-Pass Adversarial Review

Runs seven independent reviewers, each focused on a single lens, then synthesizes their findings into one prioritized revision plan. Pattern 15 from the workflow guide, mechanized.

Why seven passes? A single-agent review blends lenses and softens each one. Seven forked agents each approach the paper with full context budget for their own lens, then a synthesizer resolves conflicts and de-duplicates.

When to pick this over /review-paper: This skill costs roughly 7× more tokens than /review-paper (default) and ~2× more than /review-paper --adversarial. Use it when the paper is submission-ready or at R&R stage and you need maximum lens coverage. For early drafts or iterative work, /review-paper is the right tool. For journal-simulation pressure test, use /review-paper --peer <journal> instead.

Inputs

  • $0 — manuscript path (.tex, .qmd, .md, or .pdf). Required.

The Seven Lenses

Each lens runs as a forked subagent (context: fork) so the main conversation stays clean.

# Lens Focus Agent type
1 Abstract audit Does the abstract state the question, method, result, and contribution? Does it match the paper? general-purpose
2 Intro structure Does the intro follow Cochrane / Varian framework? Literature placement? Contribution clarity? general-purpose
3 Methods / identification Are assumptions stated? Is identification credible? Are alternatives addressed? domain-reviewer
4 Results + tables Do tables read standalone? Is magnitude + significance discussed? Units consistent? general-purpose
5 Robustness Are obvious threats pre-empted? Is the robustness section convincing or theatrical? general-purpose
6 Prose quality Sentence-level clarity, hedging, passive voice, paragraph cohesion proofreader
7 Citation audit Invokes /validate-bib --semantic; checks cite-claim direction for top-10 works general-purpose

Workflow

Phase 0: Pre-flight

  1. Resolve manuscript path.
  2. Decide if .pdf → extract text first (pdftotext -layout).
  3. Create output dir: quality_reports/seven_pass_[stem]/.

Phase 1: Spawn 7 reviewers in parallel

In a single message, spawn 7 Task tool calls (one per lens). Each subagent gets:

  • The manuscript path (to re-read with its own context).
  • The lens-specific prompt (below).
  • Instructions to write to quality_reports/seven_pass_[stem]/lens_[N]_[lens-name].md.
  • Severity tagging: CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR.

Lens prompt rubrics are embedded inline below — one summary paragraph per lens. Each forked subagent receives its lens's rubric plus the manuscript path.

Lens prompt summaries:

  • Lens 1 (Abstract): Does the first sentence state the question? Does it name the method? Quantify the headline result? State one-sentence contribution? Cross-check: do these four things match the body?
  • Lens 2 (Intro): Does the intro open with the question? Hook → context → contribution → roadmap? Lit review placed correctly (after the hook, not before)? Contribution-counted (1, 2, 3…)? Preview of findings with magnitudes?
  • Lens 3 (Methods): Is every assumption stated? Are they strong or weak? Is identification one-liner clear? Are known violations (selection, measurement, reverse causality, SUTVA) addressed? Are instruments / RDD / DiD assumptions explicit and defensible?
  • Lens 4 (Results): Does each table read standalone (caption, units, SEs clarified)? Is magnitude interpreted (not just significance)? Are units consistent across tables? Are figures legible at 8pt?
  • Lens 5 (Robustness): Does the paper ANTICIPATE a sharp referee's objections? Are robustness checks motivated, or just listed? Power/placebo tests present? Heterogeneity explored where promised?
  • Lens 6 (Prose): Sentences under 30 words? Active voice dominant? Hedging proportionate (neither overclaiming nor endless "may suggest")? Paragraph topic sentences?
  • Lens 7 (Citations): Invoke /validate-bib --semantic. For top-10 cited works, does the in-text claim match the cited paper's actual finding direction? Are contemporary / competing works cited?

Phase 2: Synthesize

Wait for all 7 lens reports. Then read them and produce:

quality_reports/seven_pass_[stem]/_SYNTHESIS.md

Markdown
## Seven-Pass Review: [Manuscript]

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Path:** [manuscript]

### Executive verdict

**Overall state:** [SUBMIT / REVISE-MINOR / REVISE-MAJOR / REJECT-AND-RESTART]

### Cross-lens CRITICAL issues
| # | Lens(es) | Issue | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|

### MAJOR issues (second-round)
| # | Lens(es) | Issue |
|---|---|---|

### MINOR polish
[bulleted]

### Per-lens scorecard
| Lens | Critical | Major | Minor | Score/10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Abstract | | | | |
| 2. Intro | | | | |
| 3. Methods | | | | |
| 4. Results | | | | |
| 5. Robustness | | | | |
| 6. Prose | | | | |
| 7. Citations | | | | |
| **Overall** | | | | |

### Revision plan (in recommended order)
1. [Highest-leverage fix — usually a lens with 2+ CRITICALs]
2. …
7. [Lowest-leverage polish]

### Contradictions between lenses
[If two lenses disagree, surface here. E.g., Lens 2 says "expand contribution" but Lens 6 says "trim intro".]

Phase 3: Token-budget report

After synthesis, print:

Text Only
Seven-pass review complete.
Subagents: 7 (parallel) + 1 synthesizer.
Approx token usage: ~80–120k (vs ~15k for single-pass /review-paper).
Runtime: ~3–5 min wall-clock.
For cheaper alternatives:
  - Single-pass: /review-paper
  - Iterative: /review-paper --adversarial

When to use this skill

  • Before first submission to a top journal.
  • After a major revision when you want to catch drift.
  • R&R when referees disagree — surfaces contradictions your revision must navigate.

When NOT to use

  • Early drafts (use /review-paper single-pass first).
  • Short notes, comments, or replies (overkill).
  • When you've already run this in the last 7 days and nothing substantive changed.

Cross-references

  • .claude/skills/review-paper/SKILL.md — the single-pass and --adversarial modes (cheaper, faster).
  • .claude/skills/validate-bib/SKILL.md — invoked by Lens 7.
  • .claude/skills/audit-reproducibility/SKILL.md — complementary; numeric-claims side of the audit.
  • Workflow guide, Pattern 15 — the narrative explanation of why seven lenses.

Exit behavior

  • Exits 0 always (review is informational). The synthesis report's "Executive verdict" is the gate.
  • Any CRITICAL at the top of the synthesis should block submission until resolved.

What this skill does NOT do

  • Re-run seven lenses if the manuscript hasn't changed — check git diff against last run date in _SYNTHESIS.md, skip unchanged lenses if requested via --incremental (future).
  • Auto-apply fixes — that's /review-paper --adversarial's job.
  • Replace human judgment. A reviewer who knows your subfield still beats seven LLMs.