requesting-peer-reviewlisted

# Requesting Peer Review Subject a drafted manuscript to structured review before submission. Two passes: **constructive** (strengthen the argument, improve clarity) and **adversarial** (find holes, challenge assumptions). Each pass is a fresh subagent with the manuscript and relevant sources — no conversation history pollution. **Announce at start:** "Using requesting-peer-review on <manuscript path>." <SOFT-GATE> Before closing out the review, check: (1) Both passes (constructive + adversarial) have produced written reports (2) The user has decided on every Major Issue: accept / reject / defer If unmet: explain to the user which condition is missing, ask for a short reason, write it to `knowledge/_meta/gate-overrides.log`, and close out. Closing a review with open Major Issues is a deliberate decision, not an oversight — the reason in the log makes that traceable. </SOFT-GATE> ## When to use - A manuscript QMD file exists under `output/publication/` and has rendered successfully - Before sending to an external reviewer, before submission, before grant deadline - After major revision, to re-check whether open issues were addressed **NOT for:** first-draft feedback (use `drafting-manuscript`'s skeleton review), copy-editing (separate task), single-paragraph checks. ## Checklist 1. **Confirm target manuscript** and render status (`make render` must succeed) 2. **Identify discipline** — Theologie, Biblische Archäologie, Alte Geschichte, Digital Humanities, Mixed Method