Each analysis type is a purpose-built prompt template designed for a specific kind of document and review goal. The pipeline adapts its Writer, Reviewer, and Reconciler behavior based on the type you select.
Broad-purpose analysis that works on any document type.
A comprehensive review covering structure, clarity, completeness, consistency, and overall quality. Suitable for any document when no specialized type applies.
Distills a long document into its key points, conclusions, and action items. Useful for decision-makers who need the core content without reading the full document.
Rewrites dense or jargon-heavy content into clear, accessible language while preserving technical accuracy. Ideal for making expert-level documents understandable to broader audiences.
Full-scope reviews tailored to specific document domains.
Evaluates architecture decisions, design trade-offs, scalability considerations, and technical completeness of design documents and specifications.
Reviews patent claims for scope, clarity, prior art exposure, validity risks, and potential design-around opportunities.
Evaluates research methodology, statistical rigor, conclusions supported by data, citation quality, and contribution to the field.
Reviews academic writing for argument structure, evidence quality, literature engagement, and adherence to scholarly standards.
Analyzes code for reliability, security vulnerabilities, maintainability, performance bottlenecks, and adherence to best practices.
Identifies obligations, liabilities, missing protections, ambiguous clauses, and risk areas in legal contracts and agreements.
Reviews business plans, proposals, and reports for logical consistency, market assumptions, financial projections, and strategic coherence.
Targeted reviews for technical documents, specifications, and system designs.
Identifies missing requirements, undefined behaviors, ambiguous acceptance criteria, and implementation gaps in specifications and requirements documents.
Evaluates a system design for attack surfaces, threat vectors, trust boundary violations, and missing security controls using structured threat modeling approaches.
Assesses the risk profile of a proposed implementation plan: technical complexity, dependency risks, timeline feasibility, and failure modes.
Evaluates whether a proposed technical approach is achievable given stated constraints: resources, timeline, technology maturity, and team capability.
Checks a system or service against production readiness criteria: monitoring, alerting, runbooks, rollback procedures, capacity planning, and SLA compliance.
Specialized analysis for legal documents and intellectual property.
Performs a deep risk assessment of contract terms, focusing on liability exposure, indemnification gaps, termination pitfalls, and asymmetric obligations.
Analyzes a product or technology description against relevant patent landscapes to identify potential infringement risks and design-around paths.
Evaluates a patent application or invention disclosure against known prior art to identify novelty risks and suggest strengthening strategies.
Rigorous critique for research papers, scientific methodology, and data analysis.
Evaluates the research methodology for validity, reliability, sampling approach, control conditions, and potential confounding factors.
Reviews statistical methods, sample sizes, significance testing, effect sizes, and whether conclusions are supported by the quantitative evidence presented.
Evaluates whether the research can be independently reproduced: completeness of methods, data availability, code sharing, and environmental specifications.
Analysis for business cases, financial models, and strategic documents.
Challenges the assumptions, projections, and reasoning in a business case. Identifies fragile logic, optimistic estimates, and unexamined risks.
Examines a business or investment document for completeness, red flags, missing disclosures, and areas requiring further investigation.
Reviews spreadsheet-based or narrative financial models for formula errors, unrealistic assumptions, sensitivity gaps, and structural risks.
Critical analysis of reasoning, persuasion, and intellectual honesty.
Scans arguments for formal and informal logical fallacies: strawman, false dichotomy, appeal to authority, circular reasoning, and other structural weaknesses.
Identifies cognitive biases, framing effects, selective evidence presentation, and imbalanced treatment of opposing viewpoints in analytical or persuasive documents.
Constructs the strongest possible counterarguments to a document's thesis, exposing weaknesses the author may not have considered or addressed.