methods-reviewlisted

# Methods Review ## Core Rule A Methods section passes only if **a competent stranger, with the paper and the deposited materials, could regenerate the result.** This skill enumerates every reproduction ingredient, checks the section against it, and **flags each missing one** — it does not fill the gap by inventing a value. The honest output for an unstated seed is "GAP — seed not reported", never a plausible "seed = 42" written into the prose. And **changing what the Methods say was done is a Protected Claim** (`CLAUDE.md`): it alters the record of the experiment, so this skill *flags* gaps and proposes what the author must add — it never rewrites the procedure to make it look more reproducible than it was. This operationalizes `agent_docs/reproducibility.md`. A vague Methods section is the single most common reason a reviewer cannot sign off; this catches the omissions before they do. ## When to Use Invoke with `/methods-review` when: - A Method(s) / Experimental-setup section is drafted and you want it reproducible before review. - Before submission to a venue with a reproducibility checklist (NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR require one; ACL expects a responsible-NLP checklist) — pre-fill it from this output. - A reviewer asked for "more detail" / "missing hyperparameters" / "no version reported" — run this to find *all* such gaps at once, not just the one flagged. - The prompt-router flagged the task `[Methods]`. Scope it: `/methods-review sections/method.tex` (include the