scholar-review

name	scholar-review
disable-model-invocation	true
description	Systematic academic paper review workflow covering self-review before submission and rebuttal writing after receiving reviewer feedback. Triggers on "review paper", "self-review", "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "analyze review comments", "paper review".
allowed-tools	["Bash","Edit","Glob","Grep","Read","WebFetch","WebSearch","Write","request_user_input","update_plan"]
session-mode	none
version	0.5.55

Plan tracking: codex 无 TaskCreate/TaskUpdate/TodoWrite 任务板。进度清单用 update_plan({ explanation?, plan: [{ step, status }] }) 维护（整体提交步骤数组，status: pending | in_progress | completed），权威状态始终在 session 工件中；依赖/认领（addBlockedBy/owner）是工件字段，不是工具参数。

Scholar Review

A structured workflow for academic paper review and rebuttal. Covers two modes: (1) pre-submission self-review to identify and fix weaknesses before submitting, and (2) post-review rebuttal writing to respond professionally to reviewer feedback.

Pre-load (before execution)

1. Codebase docs: If .workflow/codebase/ARCHITECTURE.md exists, read for project context
2. Specs: maestro load --type spec --category coding — load coding conventions
3. Wiki knowledge: maestro search "academic writing research paper" --json — top 5 entries as prior context
4. All optional — proceed without if unavailable

Architecture Overview

                          scholar-review
                               |
                    [Preference Collection]
                         /            \
              Pre-Submission        Post-Review
                   |              /     |      \
            +-----------+   +--------+--------+---------+
            | Phase 1   |   | Phase 2| Phase 3| Phase 4 |
            | Self-     |   | Review | Response| Rebuttal|
            | Review    |   | Analysis| Strategy| Writing|
            +-----------+   +--------+--------+---------+
                   |              \     |      /
                   v               v    v    v
            self-review-       rebuttal-response.md
            report.md                  |
                                       v
                                 +-----------+
                                 | Phase 5   |
                                 | Revision  |
                                 +-----------+
                                       |
                                       v
                                 revised-paper

Key Design Principles

1. Mode-driven execution: Pre-submission triggers Phase 1 only; post-review triggers Phases 2-5 sequentially
2. Evidence-based review: Every finding must reference specific sections, pages, or line numbers
3. Professional tone: All rebuttal output follows academic tone guidelines (grateful, respectful, evidence-based)
4. Completeness: Every reviewer comment must receive a response; no comment is skipped
5. Actionable output: Each phase produces concrete artifacts, not abstract advice

Interactive Preference Collection

Collect workflow preferences before dispatching to phases:

Ask the user:

1. Review Stage:
   - "Pre-submission self-review" → Execute Phase 1 only
   - "Post-review rebuttal" → Execute Phases 2-5

2. Paper Location:
   - Path to paper file(s) or directory

3. (If post-review) Reviewer Comments Location:
   - Path to reviewer comments file(s)

4. (If post-review) Target Venue:
   - Conference/journal name (e.g., NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR, ACL)
   - "Other" with custom venue name

5. Auto Mode:
   - "Interactive (Recommended)" → Confirm at each phase transition
   - "Auto" → Execute all applicable phases without confirmation

Store as workflowPreferences:
  - mode: "pre-submission" | "post-review"
  - paperPath: string
  - reviewCommentsPath: string (post-review only)
  - targetVenue: string
  - autoYes: boolean

Execution Flow

COMPACT DIRECTIVE: Context compression MUST check update_plan phase status. The phase currently marked in_progress is the active execution phase -- preserve its FULL content. Only compress phases marked completed or pending.

Pre-Submission Mode

Phase 1: Self-Review
  Ref: phases/01-self-review.md
  Input: paperPath, targetVenue
  Output: self-review-report.md
  update_plan: Mark Phase 1 in_progress → completed

Post-Review Mode

Phase 2: Review Analysis
  Ref: phases/02-review-analysis.md
  Input: reviewCommentsPath, paperPath
  Output: review-analysis.md (classified comments with priorities)
  update_plan: Mark Phase 2 in_progress → completed

Phase 3: Response Strategy
  Ref: phases/03-response-strategy.md
  Input: review-analysis.md, paperPath
  Output: response-strategy.md (strategy per comment)
  update_plan: Mark Phase 3 in_progress → completed

Phase 4: Rebuttal Writing
  Ref: phases/04-rebuttal-writing.md
  Input: response-strategy.md, paperPath, targetVenue
  Output: rebuttal-response.md
  update_plan: Mark Phase 4 in_progress → completed

Phase 5: Revision
  Ref: phases/05-revision.md
  Input: rebuttal-response.md, paperPath
  Output: revision-plan.md, tracked changes list
  update_plan: Mark Phase 5 in_progress → completed

Phase Reference Documents (read on-demand when phase executes):

Phase	Document	Purpose	Compact
1	phases/01-self-review.md	Pre-submission quality check	update_plan driven
2	phases/02-review-analysis.md	Parse and classify reviewer comments	update_plan driven
3	phases/03-response-strategy.md	Plan rebuttal strategy per comment	update_plan driven + sentinel
4	phases/04-rebuttal-writing.md	Write structured rebuttal document	update_plan driven + sentinel
5	phases/05-revision.md	Plan and track paper revisions	update_plan driven

Compact Rules:

1. update_plan in_progress -> Preserve full content, do not compress
2. update_plan completed -> May compress to summary
3. Sentinel fallback -> Phases marked with sentinel contain compact sentinels; if only sentinel remains without full Step protocol, immediately Read() to recover

Core Rules

1. Read paper first: Always read the full paper before any review or analysis
2. Classify before responding: Never write rebuttals without completing review analysis and strategy
3. No skipped comments: Every reviewer comment must have a response entry
4. Venue-aware tone: Adjust strategy and emphasis based on target venue conventions
5. Preserve reviewer numbering: Maintain original reviewer IDs and comment numbering throughout

Input Processing

User input → Structured format:

PAPER: [path to paper files]
MODE: [pre-submission | post-review]
REVIEWS: [path to reviewer comments] (post-review only)
VENUE: [target conference/journal]
OUTPUT_DIR: [directory for generated documents]

Data Flow

paperPath ──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │                                                        │
    v                                                        │
Phase 1: self-review-report.md                               │
    (Pre-submission mode ends here)                          │
                                                             │
reviewCommentsPath ─── Phase 2: review-analysis.md ──────────┤
                           │                                 │
                           v                                 │
                    Phase 3: response-strategy.md ───────────┤
                           │                                 │
                           v                                 │
                    Phase 4: rebuttal-response.md ───────────┤
                           │                                 │
                           v                                 │
                    Phase 5: revision-plan.md ────── paperPath

update_plan Pattern

Phase Attachment (entering phase)

update_plan([
  { id: "phase-N", task: "Phase N: [name]", status: "in_progress" },
  { id: "phase-N-step-1", task: "  Step N.1: [name]", status: "pending" },
  { id: "phase-N-step-2", task: "  Step N.2: [name]", status: "pending" }
])

Phase Collapse (exiting phase)

update_plan([
  { id: "phase-N", task: "Phase N: [name] -- Done", status: "completed" },
  { id: "phase-N+1", task: "Phase N+1: [name]", status: "in_progress" }
])

Error Handling

1. Paper not found: Ask user to confirm paper path, retry once
2. Reviews not parseable: Ask user to reformat or paste reviews directly
3. Phase failure: Log error, ask user whether to retry or skip to next phase
4. Venue unknown: Fall back to generic academic review conventions

Coordinator Checklist

Before Each Phase

• Confirm input files exist and are readable
• update_plan updated: current phase in_progress
• Read phase document via Ref: marker

After Each Phase

• Output file generated and saved
• update_plan updated: current phase completed
• If not autoYes, confirm with user before next phase

Post-Workflow

• All output files listed for user
• Summary of findings/actions presented