What problem does it solve? Peer review of papers often produces vague, unverifiable criticism or restates what authors already concede. This Skill forces every objection to quote the paper verbatim, resolve to a page, and cite dated prior work from a real literature search, then derives the recommendation mechanically from what survives scrutiny. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Anchored Objections: Every weakness must quote the paper verbatim (resolved to a page by the script) or name a specific omission; unanchored objections are rejected by the gate. - Five Review Banks: Structured walkthroughs of claims, study design, statistical analysis, limitations, and novelty, with a firewall that blocks illegitimate objections like "not novel" without a citation. - Derived Verdicts: The recommendation (reject, major/minor revision) and confidence band are computed from grounded objections by the session engine, never asserted freely. - Use Case: Given a manuscript PDF, run a full review: extract claims from the abstract, walk each bank noting objections with quotes, link a lit-review corpus for novelty checks, and produce a referee report where every marker is verified by cite-check. ## Quick Start Review the paper at manuscript.pdf as an adverse referee at full level and produce a referee report with page-cited objections.