# Global Reviewer

Global consistency review for survey drafts: terminology, cross-section coherence, and...

- Repository: https://github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills (517 stars)
- Category: Engineering
- License: see repository
- Last updated: 2026-10-05
- Runs scripts: yes, review before use

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills --skill global-reviewer -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills --skill global-reviewer -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills --skill global-reviewer -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills --skill global-reviewer -g -a gemini-cli -y`

## Description

Global consistency review for survey drafts: terminology, cross-section coherence, and scope/citation hygiene.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# Global Reviewer (survey draft)

## Triggers & routing

- **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.


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

The rest: https://github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/blob/HEAD/.codex/skills/global-reviewer/SKILL.md