Paper review

Review a manuscript the user provides, the way a careful referee would, and ground literature and reference findings in Corbis sources.

Ground rules

• Cite only papers, data, and quotes that a Corbis tool returned in this conversation or that the user supplied. Never invent a DOI, author, year, title, or quote.
• Say when evidence is thin, old, mixed, or limited to one market or domain. Never describe the output as free of errors or hallucinations.
• Some optional steps use premium tools that need an enterprise plan. If a premium tool is not in your tool list, or returns an access or plan error, tell the user once that the step needs an enterprise plan (current plans: https://www.corbis.ai/pricing), then continue with the standard tools. Never retry a denied tool.
• Research tool calls may use Corbis credits. Use a batch tool when one exists, and never re-fetch details for a paper already retrieved in this conversation.
• Quick mode is the default for a narrow question: at most 5 Corbis tool calls, a short cited answer, then an offer to run the full workflow. Use full mode when the user asks for a review, report, or audit, or accepts that offer.
• If no Corbis tools are available, or a Corbis call returns a sign-in or connection error, first retry the call once through any other Corbis connection in your tool list (the same tool name from another Corbis server). That retry counts toward the quick-mode limit, so skip it when no calls remain. If none works, ask the user to connect or reconnect Corbis (the plugin's Connectors tab, or /mcp in Claude Code) instead of answering from memory. Do not switch to another source, such as a web search or another citation database, unless the user asks, and label anything from another source as not verified by Corbis.

Before you start

• You need the manuscript. If none is attached, ask for it. Never review from a title or abstract alone and present it as a paper review.
• Pick the review type from the request:
  • Referee report: overall assessment, recommendation, must-address issues, and additional comments.
  • Technical audit: specific technical findings, each with an exact quote from the manuscript.
  • Ask only if the request fits both.
• Send Corbis short search queries and summaries, not the full manuscript text.

Quick (a request for fast feedback, or top issues)

1. Read the manuscript.
2. Report the five most important issues. For each: location (section, page, table, or equation), the problem, why it matters, and a concrete fix. For a technical audit, include the exact quote.
3. Corbis calls are optional here (at most 5). Use one literature_retrieve call only if an issue depends on related work.
4. Offer the full review.

Full review

If your client can read MCP resources, read docs://workflow-packs/referee-report (referee report) or docs://workflow-packs/technical-audit (technical audit) first; use its phases and contracts, and do not create local files or subagents. Otherwise follow references/referee-report-phases.md or references/technical-audit-phases.md.

Evidence tools during the phases:

• Related and missing literature: literature_retrieve or search_papers with short queries built from the research question, then get_paper_details_batch on the papers you keep, at most 25 IDs per call.
• Bibliography health (technical audit): verify_bibtex on the manuscript's references when the user supplies BibTeX.
• Reference list for papers you cite in the report: render_citations.

Deliver the report in the template from the phase reference.

Scored evaluation (enterprise upgrade)

After the local report, on enterprise plans:

• Referee report: call referee_report_evaluate with the summary contract in references/referee-report-phases.md.
• Technical audit: call technical_audit_evaluate with the findings contract in references/technical-audit-phases.md.

If the tool is unavailable or denied, deliver the local report labeled "Local review" and note once that the scored evaluation needs an enterprise plan.