diff --git a/scripts/submission_review/README.md b/scripts/submission_review/README.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..4cab7b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/submission_review/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+# Pre-submission report review
+
+The submission-validation loop: review a vulnerability report against a
+program's eligibility rules BEFORE submitting, fix the gaps, re-review, submit
+only on SUBMIT-READY. Catches locally what the program's triage would catch
+later, while fixing it is still free.
+
+Uses the same measurement discipline as the benchmark harness: the reviewer is
+an independent LLM that must pass a falsification battery before it is allowed
+to grade (an obviously eligible report must pass, an obviously out-of-scope one
+must fail), it refuses to review a report written by its own model, and every
+verdict cites the rule it applied plus a concrete fix.
+
+## The loop
+
+```
+finding + report
+      |
+      v
+review.py --report report.md --rules rules/<program>.json
+      |
+  SUBMIT-READY? --no--> fix the cited gaps --> re-run
+      |
+     yes
+      v
+   submit
+```
+
+Exit codes: `0` submit-ready, `2` gaps found, `3` reviewer not trusted
+(battery failed or configuration error).
+
+## Checks
+
+| Check | What it enforces |
+|---|---|
+| eligibility | class is in the rules' accepted list and not in the rejected list (cites both) |
+| poc_remote | reproduction is a remote attacker over HTTP, not server-side access |
+| reproduction | a third party can follow it; requests complete; expected vs actual stated |
+| impact_measured | quantified with denominator or a demonstrated outcome, not adjectives |
+| consolidation | one finding per report; same-type findings consolidated |
+| version_current | component + exact version + latest-at-time stated |
+| ban_risk | no untested claims presented as verified |
+
+## Usage
+
+```bash
+REVIEW_API=https://api.example.com REVIEW_API_KEY=... REVIEW_MODEL=<reviewer> \
+python3 review.py --report my-finding.md --rules rules/strict-vdp.json \
+    --subject-model <model that wrote the report>
+```
+
+`--subject-model` exists so a model never reviews its own writing (pass
+`--allow-self-review` to override knowingly). Verdicts land next to the report
+as `<report>.review.json` with every check, the applied rule, the reason, and
+the suggested fix.
+
+## Rule files
+
+`rules/strict-vdp.json` is the default: a strict disclosure policy's shape
+(accepted classes with chaining conditions, rejected classes, format
+requirements, risk notes). Copy it per program and paste the program's exact
+published criteria — the reviewer judges only against what the file says, so
+fidelity to the real policy is the file's job, not the reviewer's.
+
+## Limits
+
+The reviewer is an LLM and can misjudge; every verdict carries its reason and
+the rule text, so audit before trusting a pass. A single pass is one opinion:
+for high-stakes submissions, re-run after every edit (the loop is cheap; a
+rejection is not).
diff --git a/scripts/submission_review/review.py b/scripts/submission_review/review.py
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..2a00010
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/submission_review/review.py
@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""Pre-submission report review: validate a vulnerability report against a
+program's eligibility rules BEFORE it is submitted, and refine on the feedback
+(local oracle + refine-on-response).
+
+Why: strict vulnerability programs reject (and some ban) reports that miss
+their criteria — wrong vulnerability class, PoC not written from a remote
+attacker's perspective, no measurable impact, several findings of one type
+split across reports. Reviewing that locally first, with an independent
+reviewer that must pass a falsification battery, catches exactly the gaps a
+program's triage would catch, while fixing them is still free.
+
+Discipline (same method as the benchmark harness in this repo):
+- the reviewer is an independent LLM and must pass a battery before grading
+  (an obviously eligible report passes, an obviously out-of-scope one fails,
+  a vague one fails); a grader that cannot fail the wrong ones does not run
+- every verdict carries the rule it cites and a suggested fix
+- exit code 0 = submit-ready, 2 = gaps found, 3 = reviewer not trusted
+
+Usage:
+  REVIEW_API=https://api.example.com REVIEW_API_KEY=... REVIEW_MODEL=... \
+  python3 review.py --report finding.md --rules rules/strict-vdp.json
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import argparse
+import json
+import os
+import pathlib
+import sys
+import urllib.error
+import urllib.request
+
+REVIEW_VERSION = "review-v1"
+
+REVIEWER_SYSTEM = """You are a strict vulnerability-program triager. You receive one security report and the program's eligibility rules. Judge the report EXACTLY against the rules, not against your own sense of severity.
+
+For each check below, output one object in a JSON array:
+{"check": "<check id>", "pass": true|false, "rule": "<the rule text you applied>", "reason": "1-2 sentences citing the report", "fix": "one concrete sentence to fix it, empty when pass"}
+
+Checks to run (ids in this order): eligibility, poc_remote, reproduction, impact_measured, consolidation, version_current, ban_risk.
+
+- eligibility: the vulnerability class is in the rules' accepted list AND not in the rejected list. Quote both entries you compared against.
+- poc_remote: the reproduction steps are written from a REMOTE attacker's perspective over HTTP (requests an outside attacker can send), not requiring server-side access, local files, or vendor tooling on the server.
+- reproduction: a third party could follow the steps and see the result; every request shows method, URL, headers that matter, and body; expected vs actual behavior is stated.
+- impact_measured: the impact is quantified with its denominator or a concrete attacker outcome (data actually returned / command actually executed), not an adjective. "An attacker can dump the table" fails; "3 of 20 payload variants returned other-tenant rows" passes.
+- consolidation: the report covers ONE finding; same-type findings the reporter knows about are consolidated here, not promised in separate reports.
+- version_current: the report states the affected component, its exact version, and that it is the latest at the time of writing.
+- ban_risk: the report contains no untested claims presented as verified (every claim traces to an executed request or output in the report).
+
+Output ONLY the JSON array."""
+
+
+def llm(base: str, key: str, model: str, user: str, max_tokens: int = 3000) -> str:
+    payload = json.dumps({
+        "model": model,
+        "messages": [{"role": "system", "content": REVIEWER_SYSTEM}, {"role": "user", "content": user}],
+        "temperature": 0, "max_tokens": max_tokens,
+    }).encode()
+    r = urllib.request.Request(base.rstrip("/") + "/chat/completions", data=payload, method="POST")
+    r.add_header("Content-Type", "application/json")
+    r.add_header("Authorization", "Bearer " + key)
+    try:
+        with urllib.request.urlopen(r, timeout=int(os.environ.get("REVIEW_TIMEOUT", "900"))) as resp:
+            body = json.loads(resp.read().decode())
+        return body["choices"][0]["message"]["content"] or ""
+    except urllib.error.HTTPError as exc:
+        raise SystemExit(f"reviewer call failed: HTTP {exc.code}: {exc.read().decode(errors='replace')[:200]}")
+
+
+def parse_verdicts(raw: str) -> list[dict]:
+    start, end = raw.find("["), raw.rfind("]")
+    if start == -1 or end <= start:
+        raise ValueError("no JSON array in reviewer output")
+    verdicts = json.loads(raw[start:end + 1])
+    if not isinstance(verdicts, list) or not verdicts:
+        raise ValueError("empty verdicts")
+    return verdicts
+
+
+def battery(base: str, key: str, model: str, rules: dict) -> None:
+    """The reviewer must fail the wrong reports before it is allowed to grade."""
+    good = "# SQL injection in item search\n\nPOST /search with q=' OR 1=1-- returns all rows.\n\n## Measured impact\n2 of 4 payload variants returned rows from other tenants; 2 rejected fail-closed. Proof basis: executed against the current released version 2.3.1 over HTTP."
+    bad = "# Username enumeration on login\n\nDifferent responses for existing vs unknown users let an attacker enumerate accounts."
+    cases = [
+        ("eligible-must-pass", good, True, "eligibility"),
+        ("out-of-scope-must-fail", bad, False, "eligibility"),
+    ]
+    for label, report, expect, check in cases:
+        user = f"## Program rules\n{json.dumps(rules, indent=1)}\n\n## Report\n{report}\n\nRun the checks; output the JSON array."
+        raw = llm(base, key, model, user, 2000)
+        try:
+            v = {x.get("check"): x for x in parse_verdicts(raw)}
+            got = v.get(check, {}).get("pass")
+        except ValueError:
+            raise SystemExit(f"reviewer battery '{label}': unparseable output; reviewer not trusted")
+        if got != expect:
+            raise SystemExit(f"reviewer battery FAILED on '{label}' (expected {check} pass={expect}, got {got}); a reviewer that cannot fail the wrong reports does not run")
+
+
+def main() -> None:
+    ap = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=__doc__, formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter)
+    ap.add_argument("--report", required=True, help="path to the report markdown (or '-' for stdin)")
+    ap.add_argument("--rules", default=str(pathlib.Path(__file__).parent / "rules" / "strict-vdp.json"))
+    ap.add_argument("--subject-model", help="model that wrote the report, to refuse self-review")
+    ap.add_argument("--allow-self-review", action="store_true")
+    ap.add_argument("--out", help="write the verdict JSON here (default: alongside the report)")
+    args = ap.parse_args()
+
+    base = os.environ.get("REVIEW_API", "")
+    key = os.environ.get("REVIEW_API_KEY", "")
+    model = os.environ.get("REVIEW_MODEL", "")
+    if not (base and key and model):
+        raise SystemExit("need REVIEW_API, REVIEW_API_KEY, REVIEW_MODEL")
+
+    if args.subject_model and args.subject_model == model and not args.allow_self_review:
+        raise SystemExit(f"reviewer model equals the report's model ({model}); refusing. Pass --allow-self-review to override knowingly.")
+
+    rules = json.loads(pathlib.Path(args.rules).read_text())
+    report = sys.stdin.read() if args.report == "-" else pathlib.Path(args.report).read_text()
+    if not report.strip():
+        raise SystemExit("empty report")
+
+    print("[battery] verifying the reviewer fails the wrong reports")
+    battery(base, key, model, rules)
+
+    user = (f"## Program rules\n{json.dumps(rules, indent=1)}\n\n## Report\n{report}\n\n"
+            "Run the checks in order; output ONLY the JSON array.")
+    print("[review] grading")
+    verdicts = parse_verdicts(llm(base, key, model, user))
+
+    failed = [v for v in verdicts if not v.get("pass")]
+    doc = {
+        "review_version": REVIEW_VERSION,
+        "rules_file": os.path.basename(args.rules),
+        "reviewer_model": model,
+        "submit_ready": not failed,
+        "failed_checks": failed,
+        "verdicts": verdicts,
+    }
+    out = pathlib.Path(args.out) if args.out else pathlib.Path(args.report).with_suffix(".review.json")
+    out.write_text(json.dumps(doc, indent=2))
+
+    print(f"\n{'SUBMIT-READY' if not failed else 'GAPS FOUND'} ({len(verdicts) - len(failed)}/{len(verdicts)} checks pass)")
+    for v in failed:
+        print(f"  FAIL {v.get('check')}: {v.get('reason')}")
+        if v.get("fix"):
+            print(f"       fix: {v['fix']}")
+    print(f"\nverdicts: {out}")
+    print("fix the gaps, re-run, submit only on SUBMIT-READY. A rate without its basis is not a verdict: read the cited rules before trusting a pass.")
+    sys.exit(0 if not failed else 2)
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()
diff --git a/scripts/submission_review/rules/strict-vdp.json b/scripts/submission_review/rules/strict-vdp.json
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..531c427
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/submission_review/rules/strict-vdp.json
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+{
+  "name": "strict-vdp",
+  "version": "v1",
+  "description": "Default rule set mirroring a strict vulnerability-disclosure policy (rewrite it to your program's exact published text; the reviewer only judges against what is written here).",
+  "accepted_classes": [
+    "SQL injection",
+    "arbitrary file upload / deletion / download with full path and extension control",
+    "remote code execution",
+    "PHP object injection",
+    "significant settings change (impactful application options)",
+    "privilege escalation to contributor level or above",
+    "broken access control on genuinely sensitive objects only (API keys, secrets, password hashes, backup or SQL files)",
+    "IDOR with significant impact (personal-data leakage alone is NOT significant)",
+    "stored XSS that executes on page open with zero interaction, unauthenticated or low-privilege reachable",
+    "CSRF only when it chains into one of the accepted write actions above",
+    "denial of service only when the whole site crashes"
+  ],
+  "rejected_classes": [
+    "user or account enumeration and other low-impact information disclosure",
+    "personal-data-limited broken access control or IDOR",
+    "CSRF that does not chain into an accepted write action",
+    "role prerequisites at or below contributor level",
+    "blind SSRF",
+    "CSV injection",
+    "open redirects",
+    "self-XSS or XSS requiring unusual interaction"
+  ],
+  "format_requirements": {
+    "language": "English",
+    "version": "the latest released version of the component at the time of writing",
+    "poc_perspective": "remote attacker over HTTP; steps a third party can follow end to end; the full PoC lives in the report body, not only in attachments",
+    "consolidation": "multiple findings of the same type go into ONE report",
+    "impact": "quantified with its denominator or a concrete demonstrated attacker outcome"
+  },
+  "risk_notes": [
+    "an untested or assumption-based report can earn an immediate temporary ban",
+    "a high rejection rate can remove the reporter from the program"
+  ]
+}