Use when the user has a scientific draft (with its dataset, figures, and optional analysis code) and wants it iteratively revised until it clears a quality bar. Five specialist judges (figures, scientific content, style, formatting, code) critique the draft; a fresh, independent peer_reviewer grades it on those same axes (1-5 each → a percentage) with honesty guardrails; a scientific_writer revises prose, figures, and code — regenerating figures by running the user's plot command — until the peer-review score clears the threshold or the budget is hit. Not for writing a paper from a blank page, and not for a standalone literature survey.
التثبيت
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
Use when the user has a scientific draft (with its dataset, figures, and optional analysis code) and wants it iteratively revised until it clears a quality bar. Five specialist judges (figures, scientific content, style, formatting, code) critique the draft; a fresh, independent peer_reviewer grades it on those same axes (1-5 each → a percentage) with honesty guardrails; a scientific_writer revises prose, figures, and code — regenerating figures by running the user's plot command — until the peer-review score clears the threshold or the budget is hit. Not for writing a paper from a blank page, and not for a standalone literature survey.
compatibility
Requires Python 3.9+
metadata
{"version":"0.1.0"}
Scientific Writer Loop
The artifact is a piece of scientific writing (draft + its dataset + figures + optional code).
Each iteration critiques → grades → revises: five specialist judges produce concrete findings,
an independent peer_reviewer turns the paper into a graded 0-100 score on the same axes, and a
scientific_writer fixes the prose, figures, and code — running the user's <plot_command> to
regenerate figures. The loop runs until the score clears <pass_threshold> or the budget is hit. All
work happens on copies inside a sandbox; the user's originals are never touched.
The cast (all in this folder):
roles/figures_judge.md, roles/scientific_judge.md, roles/style_judge.md,
roles/formatting_judge.md, roles/code_reviewer.md — the five critics; each emits the shared
schemas/finding.schema.json.
roles/peer_reviewer.md — the summative grader (its own honesty rules); emits
schemas/peer_review.schema.json and decides pass.
schemas/finding.schema.json, schemas/peer_review.schema.json — the two validated outputs.
Spawn-or-degrade. On Claude Code, spawn the active judges as real Agent subagents in
parallel, then one fresh peer_reviewer, then the scientific_writer; otherwise adopt each role
inline. You are the orchestrator.
Why the grader is built this way (the honesty problem)
The peer_reviewer grades on the same axes the judges critique — which invites echoing, inflation
under loop-termination pressure, and a writer that games the rubric. roles/peer_reviewer.md
counters this: it (1) grades independently, re-deriving each axis from the paper + dataset before
reading the critiques, (2) verifies a sample of numbers/citations itself rather than trusting
"it's fixed", (3) must surface issues the judges missed, (4) holds a fixed, anchored,
reproducible bar with no credit for effort or elapsed iterations, (5) applies hard gates (a
confirmed block fails the paper regardless of the average), and (6) runs a substance check against
surface compliance. The writer optimizes the judges' concrete findings; the grader judges
holistically — so "address every finding" does not mechanically buy a pass.
When to use
Use when a written scientific draft exists and the user wants it pushed past a quality bar with
multi-judge critique and an independent peer-review grade. Default: run the full critique→grade→revise
loop below. Escape hatch: if the user only wants the critique (no rewriting), run one round of judges
peer_reviewer and stop. Not for writing a paper from a blank page, and not for a standalone
literature survey.
Setup
Resolve bindings interactively. If loop.run.yaml exists in the working dir, load it, confirm the
values in one line, and skip to the loop. Otherwise: on Claude Code (the AskUserQuestion tool is
available) infer a likely value for each binding and present it as the recommended option; on other
hosts ask each as a quoted plain-text prompt. Then write loop.run.yaml (format:
examples/run.example.yaml) and confirm every value — including which axes are active (4 vs 5) and the
live/degraded literature tier — before creating any other files.
binding
meaning
default
how to infer
<draft_path>
the draft to improve (markdown/text/tex)
—
scan the working dir for a likely draft
<dataset_paths>
data file(s) the claims/figures derive from — used to verify numbers
—
scan for data files near the draft
<figures_dir>
directory of figure images the draft references
—
scan near the draft; may be null
<code_paths>
source files that produce plots/results; empty → code axis dropped (n_axes=4, no code_reviewer)
—
scan for plotting/analysis scripts
<plot_command>
command that regenerates figures/results from the code; null → figures/code are edit-only (flagged "needs regeneration")
—
pyproject.toml/.venv/README; e.g. python3 code/make_figures.py
<citation_style>
the single style the formatting_judge enforces (APA|MLA)
APA
ask the user
<target_venue>
optional venue whose style/length norms apply
—
ask the user
<length_limits>
optional abstract/paper word-count targets
—
ask the user
<intent>
the paper's core finding/contribution, 1-2 sentences — frozen; the writer may never change it
—
read the draft, extract it, confirm with the user
<pass_threshold>
overall_score (0-100) the peer_reviewer must reach (and no hard gate) to stop
85
a solid paper without demanding perfection
<budget>
max iterations
6
—
<patience>
stop after this many consecutive no-improvement iterations
2
—
<sandbox_root>
where working copies, critiques, reviews, and the ledger live
./sandbox
—
Literature toolchain. Citation grounding (writer) and verification (scientific_judge,
peer_reviewer) go through the sibling literature-search skill — resolve <lit_skill_dir> (it
installs as a sibling, e.g. ~/.claude/skills/literature-search/), <lit_py> = python3, and
<lit> = <lit_skill_dir>/tools/lit_search.py; append --cache-dir <sandbox_root>/literature/.cache after a subcommand to reuse the cache. Confirm <lit> --help works
at setup; if the skill is absent, tell the user and either install it (copy the repo's
loops/literature-search folder into ~/.claude/skills/) or degrade all retrieval to
WebSearch/WebFetch. The keyless S2 + arXiv core works with no setup; a free S2_API_KEY makes
snippet/cite reliable — run <lit> keys --init, have the user fill the printed keys.env
themselves, and never paste secrets into chat. Record the tier (presence only) in loop.run.yaml.
Environment. The writer regenerates figures by running the user's <plot_command>in the user's
own environment — that code may need third-party deps (matplotlib, pandas, …), so the skill ships
none and never installs them; it shells out to the user's command and reads the regenerated outputs.
Helper code the skill writes stays stdlib-only. tools/lit_search.py (in the sibling skill) is
stdlib-only too.
Initialise the sandbox once bindings are confirmed (copy in the originals; never edit them in place):
<sandbox_root>/
├── loop.run.yaml ← resolved bindings + <intent> + literature_tiers
├── ledger.tsv ← header only (see Ledger)
├── literature/.cache/ ← lit_search on-disk cache
└── iter1/
├── draft.md ← COPY of <draft_path>
├── figures/ ← COPY of <figures_dir>
└── code/ ← COPY of <code_paths> (omit if no code)
The loop
<N> starts at 1; iteration 1 critiques and grades the unmodified draft (the baseline — no
revision before it). Re-grade fresh every iteration: the score comes only from a new peer review of
the revised paper, never carried over. Surface-only changes won't move it.
Copy this checklist and tick items off:
Critique — spawn the active judges in parallel (spawn-or-degrade), each over the iter<N>/ working copies + dataset; each writes iter<N>/critiques/<reviewer>.json (validates against schemas/finding.schema.json). Skip code_reviewer when no code.
Grade — spawn one freshpeer_reviewer (roles/peer_reviewer.md): it grades independently (own read first, then reconcile with the critiques; spot-checks numbers/citations; surfaces missed issues), writes iter<N>/peer_review.json (validates against schemas/peer_review.schema.json): 1-5 per active axis, overall_score = 100 × Σscore / (5 × n_axes), hard gates → pass.
Log — append one ledger.tsv row (see Ledger).
Stop check — peer_review.pass == true, or N == <budget>, or overall_score flat for <patience> iterations → stop (see Stops).
Revise — spawn scientific_writer (roles/scientific_writer.md) with the critiques, the peer review, <lit>, <plot_command>, <citation_style>, and <intent>. It fixes block/gate items first, fixes code → regenerates figures (running the copied <plot_command>inside the sandbox) → updates prose, grounds new citations via <lit>, and writes iter<N+1>/{draft.md,figures/,code/} + iter<N+1>/revision_notes.md.
N = N + 1 and repeat.
A judge finding and a peer_review look like (abridged; full shapes in schemas/):
{"reviewer":"code_reviewer","iteration":1,"overall":"block","summary":"Block: make_figures.py sorts the two columns independently, fabricating r=0.98 (true r≈0.62).","findings":[{"urgency":"must_fix","action_type":"replace","area":"make_figures:broken-pairing","finding":"xs=sorted(study); ys=sorted(score) destroys per-row pairing; r inflated to 0.98 (real ≈0.62).","proposed_action":"Correlate the paired arrays; re-render Fig 1; update r everywhere.","target_artifact":"iter1/code/make_figures.py","evidence":"code/make_figures.py:~70; paired r=0.62"}]}
{"iteration":1,"axes":{"figures":{"score":1,"justification":"Fig 1 plots bug-sorted data; numbers != data.","blocking_issues":["fig r=0.98 != paired r=0.62"]},"scientific":{"score":1,"justification":"Causal claim from one correlation; r unreproducible."},"style":{"score":2,"justification":"Promotional, AI-flavored prose."},"formatting":{"score":2,"justification":"Mixed APA/MLA; Results before Methods."},"code":{"score":1,"justification":"Independent column sort fabricates r=0.98."}},"overall_score":28.0,"pass":false,"gate_failures":["make_figures.py sort bug makes r=0.98 an artifact (true 0.62)"],"issues_judges_missed":["Methods omits the test used and n."],"spotchecks":[{"target":"paired Pearson r","method":"recomputed from data","result":"refuted"}],"substance_check":"Baseline iteration — nothing revised yet."}
Ledger
<sandbox_root>/ledger.tsv, tab-separated, never commas in free text:
Use - in the code column when the code axis is absent. The per-iteration critiques/*.json,
peer_review.json, and revision_notes.md live in iter<N>/. Report the best-scoring iteration
when stopping on budget/plateau, not necessarily the last. Leave the sandbox untracked.
Constraints
Never edit or run anything outside <sandbox_root> — read the originals once at setup, copy
them in, and work only on the copies; the <plot_command> is copied in and run from the sandbox.
Never fabricate data, numbers, figures, or citations — new citations come from real <lit> /
WebFetch retrievals, quoted verbatim; on {"error","fallback"}, fall back to WebSearch/WebFetch.
The grading bar is fixed and reproducible — the peer_reviewer never relaxes anchors to let the
loop finish; a confirmed hard gate fails the paper regardless of the average.
Protect <intent> — the writer strengthens the same finding; it never changes the core result
or deletes a real finding to dodge a critique, because removing a result to raise a score is gaming.
One coherent revision batch per iteration, blocks/gates first, so score moves are attributable.
No installs — the skill ships no deps; <plot_command> runs in the user's env, helper code is
stdlib-only. Never print or commit API keys (keys.env stays gitignored).
Stops
The loop stops on the first of:
Pass — peer_review.pass == true. Report the deliverable (iter<N>/ artifacts), the score, and
the trajectory.
Budget — N == <budget>. Report the best-scoring iteration as the deliverable.
Plateau — overall_score flat for <patience> iterations. Report the best iteration + the
standing gate_failures/must_fix blockers.
Always end with the deliverable (iter<N>/ path), its overall_score and pass/fail, the per-axis
scores, the score trajectory from ledger.tsv, and — if it did not pass — the standing blockers
(gate_failures + open must_fix) between the paper and the bar.
