| 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)
- Codebase docs: If
.workflow/codebase/ARCHITECTURE.md exists, read for project context
- Specs:
maestro load --type spec --category coding — load coding conventions
- Wiki knowledge:
maestro search "academic writing research paper" --json — top 5 entries as prior context
- 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
- Mode-driven execution: Pre-submission triggers Phase 1 only; post-review triggers Phases 2-5 sequentially
- Evidence-based review: Every finding must reference specific sections, pages, or line numbers
- Professional tone: All rebuttal output follows academic tone guidelines (grateful, respectful, evidence-based)
- Completeness: Every reviewer comment must receive a response; no comment is skipped
- 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):
Compact Rules:
- update_plan
in_progress -> Preserve full content, do not compress
- update_plan
completed -> May compress to summary
- Sentinel fallback -> Phases marked with sentinel contain compact sentinels; if only sentinel remains without full Step protocol, immediately
Read() to recover
Core Rules
- Read paper first: Always read the full paper before any review or analysis
- Classify before responding: Never write rebuttals without completing review analysis and strategy
- No skipped comments: Every reviewer comment must have a response entry
- Venue-aware tone: Adjust strategy and emphasis based on target venue conventions
- 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
- Paper not found: Ask user to confirm paper path, retry once
- Reviews not parseable: Ask user to reformat or paste reviews directly
- Phase failure: Log error, ask user whether to retry or skip to next phase
- Venue unknown: Fall back to generic academic review conventions
Coordinator Checklist
Before Each Phase
After Each Phase
Post-Workflow
