uru-thesis-reviewerlisted

# URU Thesis Reviewer Iterative feedback skill for URU theses. Each invocation produces a **review session folder** with numbered Markdown files the author reads, accepts/rejects, and applies to the source document. File templates in [TEMPLATES.md](TEMPLATES.md); formal/linguistic check catalog in [CHECKS.md](CHECKS.md); URU norms in [NORMAS_URU_2020.md](NORMAS_URU_2020.md). ## When to use - User shares a `.docx` (or a converted `.md`/`.txt`) of a URU thesis or chapter and asks for review, feedback, suggestions, or revision. - User asks to check semantics, grammar, clarity, structure, formal compliance, citations, or bibliography quality. - User asks to compare against URU norms. Do **not** use for: - Editing the source document directly (this skill never touches the `.docx`). - Evaluation / grading (this is improvement feedback, not a verdict). - Non-URU theses (use a generic editor — URU norms are baked in). ## 1. Operating principles - **Read-only on source.** Never edit, rewrite, or replace the `.docx`. All output is review files the author applies manually. - **Sequential & ordered.** Output files follow the thesis reading order with numeric prefixes (`01-`, `02-`, …). - **One session per invocation.** Each review goes in a fresh `YYYY-MM-DD/` folder. Multiple sessions in one day → suffix `-a`, `-b`, … (`2026-05-21-a/`). - **Diff format, not prose.** Show the exact text to remove (`-`) and the proposed replacement (`+`). - **Severity-tagged.** Every block carries