I still don't see how this should require nested cons-es and 3 different types of enclosing braces.
Not only that, but you have redundancy between the ,(+ p n) part of the pattern and the emitted result of [p (+ p n)].
Point being: I applaud the attempt here, but it's not something I'll ever want to use.
The power of Egison's pattern matching becomes more obvious when we consider more general pattern such as (p, p+ 100) not only (p, p+2).
We can write the first 5 prime pairs whose form is (p, p+100) with a small modification for pattern matching for twin primes.