What This Does

Generic reviewers catch generic issues. This playbook helps you build a domain-specific reviewer that catches issues unique to your field — whether that's economics, medicine, software architecture, legal documents, or any specialized domain.

The 5-Lens Framework provides a structure that adapts to any domain while ensuring comprehensive coverage.

Prerequisites

Claude Code installed and configured
Understanding of your domain's standards and common issues

The CLAUDE.md Template

Copy this into a CLAUDE.md file in your project and customize for your domain:

# Domain Reviewer: [Your Domain]

## The 5-Lens Framework

Every domain review should examine these five dimensions:

### Lens 1: Terminology & Notation
**What to check**: Is language precise and consistent?

| Check | What It Catches |
|-------|-----------------|
| Term consistency | Same concept called different names |
| Notation accuracy | Symbols used correctly per conventions |
| Jargon appropriateness | Technical terms used where needed |
| Definition clarity | Key terms properly introduced |

**Domain-specific checks**:
- [Add your domain's terminology standards]
- [Common notation mistakes in your field]

### Lens 2: Methodology & Rigor
**What to check**: Is the approach sound?

| Check | What It Catches |
|-------|-----------------|
| Method validity | Appropriate technique for the problem |
| Assumption transparency | Hidden assumptions made explicit |
| Step completeness | No missing steps in reasoning |
| Error handling | Edge cases considered |

**Domain-specific checks**:
- [Standard methodologies in your field]
- [Common methodological errors]

### Lens 3: Precedent & Citations
**What to check**: Is this grounded in existing work?

| Check | What It Catches |
|-------|-----------------|
| Attribution | Ideas properly credited |
| Relevance | Cited work actually supports claims |
| Recency | Up-to-date references where needed |
| Completeness | Key prior work not omitted |

**Domain-specific checks**:
- [Key papers/sources that should be referenced]
- [Citation format standards]

### Lens 4: Limitations & Caveats
**What to check**: Are boundaries honest?

| Check | What It Catches |
|-------|-----------------|
| Scope clarity | What this does and doesn't address |
| Generalizability | How broadly claims can apply |
| Uncertainty | Appropriate hedging language |
| Known issues | Acknowledged limitations |

**Domain-specific checks**:
- [Standard caveats for your domain]
- [Overclaiming red flags]

### Lens 5: Impact & Applications
**What to check**: Is the "so what" clear?

| Check | What It Catches |
|-------|-----------------|
| Practical relevance | Why this matters |
| Actionability | What to do with findings |
| Audience fit | Right level for intended readers |
| Implications | Consequences properly explored |

**Domain-specific checks**:
- [How work in your field is typically applied]
- [Common impact overstatements]

## Running a Domain Review

Invoke with:

Run domain review on [file/section]


Output format:

Domain Review: [Target]

Lens 1: Terminology

[Issue or ✓]

Lens 2: Methodology

[Issue or ✓]

Lens 3: Precedent

[Issue or ✓]

Lens 4: Limitations

[Issue or ✓]

Lens 5: Impact

[Issue or ✓]

Domain Score: X/100 Critical Issues: [list] Recommended Actions: [prioritized list]


## Domain-Specific Anti-Patterns

Common mistakes in [Your Domain]:
1. [Anti-pattern 1 and how to fix]
2. [Anti-pattern 2 and how to fix]
3. [Anti-pattern 3 and how to fix]

## Quality Standards

What "good" looks like in [Your Domain]:
- [Standard 1]
- [Standard 2]
- [Standard 3]

Step-by-Step Setup

Step 1: Copy the template

Add the template above to your project's CLAUDE.md.

Step 2: Customize Lens 1 (Terminology)

Add your domain's specific terminology checks:

Example (Economics):

**Domain-specific checks**:
- Treatment and control must be clearly defined
- Causal language only with causal identification
- Standard notation: β for coefficients, ε for errors
- "Significant" requires statistical support

Example (Medicine):

**Domain-specific checks**:
- Drug names use generic nomenclature
- Dosages include units and frequency
- Outcomes use validated measures
- Patient populations clearly specified

Example (Software Architecture):

**Domain-specific checks**:
- Components have clear single responsibility
- Interfaces defined before implementation
- Error states explicitly handled
- Dependencies are intentional, not accidental

Step 3: Customize the remaining lenses

Work through each lens adding checks specific to your field.

Step 4: Add anti-patterns

Document the most common mistakes in your domain.

Step 5: Test the reviewer

Run domain review on [a piece of your work]

Example: Fully Customized Domain Reviewer

For Software Security Reviews:

# Domain Reviewer: Security

### Lens 1: Terminology
- [ ] Threats vs vulnerabilities vs risks properly distinguished
- [ ] Attack vectors named using standard taxonomy (MITRE ATT&CK)
- [ ] Severity ratings use CVSS or equivalent

### Lens 2: Methodology
- [ ] Threat model defined before mitigations
- [ ] Defense in depth (not single point of failure)
- [ ] Principle of least privilege applied
- [ ] Input validation at trust boundaries

### Lens 3: Precedent
- [ ] References to CVEs for known issues
- [ ] OWASP guidelines considered
- [ ] Industry standards cited (NIST, SOC2, etc.)

### Lens 4: Limitations
- [ ] Security assumptions explicit
- [ ] Threat actors considered in scope
- [ ] Known residual risks documented

### Lens 5: Impact
- [ ] Business impact of vulnerabilities assessed
- [ ] Remediation priorities justified
- [ ] Compliance implications noted

## Anti-Patterns
1. Security through obscurity → Always assume attacker knows the system
2. Trusting client input → Validate everything server-side
3. Rolling your own crypto → Use established libraries

Tips

Start with one lens: Don't try to customize all 5 at once. Start with Terminology (Lens 1) and expand.
Add examples: For each check, add examples of good vs bad. "Use 'statistically significant' not 'significant'" is clearer than "Be precise."
Evolve over time: Add new checks when you catch new types of mistakes.
Domain expertise required: This playbook helps structure review, but you need domain knowledge to customize it well.

Troubleshooting

Problem: Review is too generic

Solution: Your domain-specific checks aren't specific enough. Add exact examples, standard references, and concrete anti-patterns.

Problem: Too many false positives

Solution: Calibrate severity. Not every terminology inconsistency is critical. Add severity levels to checks.

Problem: Missing issues that matter

Solution: Retrospectively add checks. When you miss something important, add a check for it to the framework.

Domain Reviewer Framework