Two tracks
/review is an umbrella: it reads the request and runs one of two tracks. Report review (/report-review) is the independent methodological check described below. Peer review (/peer-review) is a journal-style review with five reviewers and an editorial decision — it runs when a target journal, submission readiness or reviewer comments are asked for; see Peer review. In the Review tool page the two appear as the Report review / Peer review toggle.
Start
/review Independently review the manuscript in this session — claims, methods, statistics, citation evidence, reproducibility — and write a prioritized review report.
Without a target, the review takes the current session's manuscript and analysis artifacts. You can also upload a PDF or .md of someone else's paper and review that.
What happens
- Claims — each statement in the text is checked against the cited source or the session result.
- Statistics — where the data is in the session, the reviewer re-runs the key tests and compares numbers.
- Methods and reporting — design, sample, measures, and reporting-guideline items (for example CONSORT for trials).
- Reproducibility — whether the artifacts carry the code and inputs needed to redo the analysis.
What you get
<manuscript>_review_report.md — verdict, summary, then issues ordered Critical → Major → Minor, each with the location in the text, the evidence, and the concrete fix. A structured JSON version is saved alongside for tooling.
Reviews inside every turn
Even without /review, a lighter reviewer runs at the end of analysis, statistics and writing turns and repairs what it can before the answer is shown. /review is the full, independent pass you run before submission.
Walkthrough: Reviewing the manuscript.