---
name: expert-review-pack
description: Use when research delivery materials need to be packaged for an external expert, collaborator, consultant, or coauthor review, with review priorities, file map, key questions, and ready-to-send messages.
license: Proprietary - Medaibox Research Delivery Pack
---

# Expert Review Pack

## Overview

Use this skill to package research delivery materials into an expert-ready review pack.

The goal is not to rewrite the research itself. The goal is to prepare a clean, efficient review package so an expert or collaborator can quickly understand what to review, in what order, and what feedback is being requested.

## When to Use

Use this skill when:

- the user wants to send materials to an expert, collaborator, consultant, or coauthor
- a review packet should include priorities, file order, and key review questions
- the user wants ready-to-send expert-facing messages
- the research outputs already exist but are not yet organized for review

## Expected Inputs

Preferred inputs:

- `results_brief.md`
- `delivery_page.html`
- `slides.html`

Optional supporting inputs:

- review goals
- file paths
- target expert role
- specific questions needing feedback

## Expected Outputs

This skill should produce:

- `review_questions.md`
- `expert_review_packet.md`

Optional supporting outputs:

- `expert_wechat_message.md`
- `expert_email_message.md`

## Workflow

1. Read the results brief and identify the review objective.
2. Inventory the available delivery files.
3. Decide the best reading order for the reviewer.
4. Draft a concise expert-facing packet.
5. Draft targeted review questions.

## Reuse and Dependencies

Prefer reusing:

- `expert-review-handoff`

This skill should narrow that capability into a standard research-delivery review package.

## Bundled Resources

Expected bundled resources:

- `scripts/build_review_questions.py`
- `scripts/build_expert_pack.py`
- `templates/expert-review-note.md`
- `templates/review-question-list.md`

## Quality Bar

Before finishing, confirm that:

- the packet clearly states what should be reviewed
- the file order is explicit
- the key questions are specific rather than vague
- the outputs match the actual files in the delivery set
