grounded-review

name	grounded-review
description	Review a research report draft with a structured scoring rubric, run a bounded repair loop when needed, and produce the final deliverable report.

Grounded Review

This skill performs the quality-gating and repair stage of the middle layer.

It reads:

1. the grounded note,
2. the literature result,
3. the report draft,
4. optional supporting research artifacts,

and produces:

• a review diagnosis and score report
• a review state file
• a final deliverable research report

This skill is not a broad search skill and not an output rendering skill. It sits between:

• grounded-summary
• and the final output-formatting/rendering stage

---

Position in the pipeline

The intended pipeline is:

grounding -> grounded-research-lit -> grounded-summary -> grounded-review -> output rendering

This means:

• grounded-summary writes the main report draft
• grounded-review scores, diagnoses, repairs, re-checks, and finalizes that draft
• output skills then present that final report as pdf / docx / md / slides / audio / charts / fancy formats

grounded-review should therefore behave like a quality gate with bounded repair, not like a second compression stage.

---

Purpose

The purpose of this skill is to turn a substantial report draft into a final deliverable research report through:

1. structured evaluation,
2. weakness diagnosis,
3. bounded repair,
4. re-evaluation,
5. finalization.

It should:

• preserve the core structure and substance of the report draft
• improve evidence alignment
• catch overclaiming
• restore missing important technical details if the draft still lost them
• improve section balance and readability
• strengthen explicit linkage between grounded findings and literature evidence
• remove search-process noise from the report body
• make the report suitable for downstream output-format skills
• act as a quality gate, not just a surface editor

It should not:

• perform an unrestricted new literature search
• invent new claims not grounded in the existing inputs
• radically change the research direction
• rewrite a rich report into a shorter but thinner version
• act as a presentation-formatting skill
• run an unbounded self-improvement loop

---

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• grounded.md already exists
• lit.md already exists
• summary.md already exists
• you want a final deliverable research report for the current grounded item

Do not use this skill when:

• the report draft has not been written yet
• the literature result has not been written yet
• you only want a quick synthesis draft rather than a final report
• you only want formatting or export to pdf/docx/slides/audio

---

Inputs

How to get ground_id

Read ground_id.txt from the grounding bundle to get the stable pipeline identifier:

data/grounded_notes/<ground_id>/ground_id.txt

Do NOT generate a new ground_id. All downstream directories reuse the same ground_id.

This skill assumes the following files already exist:

1. data/grounded_notes/<ground_id>/grounded.md
2. data/lit_results/<ground_id>/lit.md
3. data/report_inputs/<ground_id>/summary.md

Optional but strongly recommended supporting inputs:

4. data/lit_inputs/<ground_id>/opened_paper_notes.jsonl
5. data/lit_inputs/<ground_id>/search_results.json
6. data/lit_downloads/<ground_id>/manifest.json
7. data/lit_inputs/<ground_id>/refine_coverage.json
8. data/lit_inputs/<ground_id>/lit_initial.md

Input reading rule

At minimum, grounded.md, lit.md, and summary.md must be read.

Do not review the report draft in isolation.

The grounded note and literature result must be used as the source of truth for:

• evidence support
• scope
• uncertainty
• open questions
• next-step recommendations
• technical detail recovery when the draft is still too thin

When available, use opened_paper_notes.jsonl, manifest.json, and refine_coverage.json to validate:

• downloaded-paper coverage
• paper-level evidence sufficiency
• whether the draft has become thinner than the research-stage output

The report draft should be treated as:

• the main draft to be reviewed
• the default structural base to preserve
• not as unquestionable truth

---

Outputs

The review stage uses a round-based archival directory structure to preserve full review history for later comparison.

Directory Structure

data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/
├── round_0/
│   ├── review_report.md      # Round 0 review diagnosis
│   └── review_state.json     # Round 0 state snapshot
├── round_1/
│   ├── review_report.md       # Round 1 review diagnosis
│   └── review_state.json     # Round 1 state snapshot
├── round_2/                  # (optional, if loop runs to round 2)
│   ├── review_report.md
│   └── review_state.json
├── round_3/                  # (optional, if loop runs to round 3)
│   ├── review_report.md
│   └── review_state.json
├── round_4/                  # (optional, if loop runs to round 4)
│   ├── review_report.md
│   └── review_state.json
├── round_5/                  # (optional, if loop runs to round 5)
│   ├── review_report.md
│   └── review_state.json
├── review_history.json       # Summary of all rounds (canonical reference)
├── review_report.md          # Symlink to latest round (for backward compatibility)
└── review_state.json        # Symlink to latest round (for backward compatibility)

data/reports/<ground_id>/
└── research_report.md       # Current final report (updated after each repair round)

Required Per-Round Outputs

For each review round, write these files to data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N>/:

1. review_report.md — human-readable review diagnosis (per-round)
2. review_state.json — machine-readable state snapshot (per-round)

Required Final Outputs

After the loop completes, update these files in data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/:

3. review_history.json — summary of all rounds (canonical reference for downstream skills)
4. review_report.md — symlink/copy of the latest round's report
5. review_state.json — symlink/copy of the latest round's state

And finalize the report in:

6. data/reports/<ground_id>/research_report.md — the final deliverable report

Optional supporting file if genuinely useful:

• data/reports/<ground_id>/review_notes.md

If review_notes.md is not necessary, do not create it.

Output roles

review_report.md

A human-readable review diagnosis containing:

• rubric scores
• pass/fail judgement
• specific weaknesses
• repair priorities
• what changed across rounds

This file should be persisted by the parent/main agent. If the reviewer subagent is read-only, the reviewer may return a structured diagnosis payload in chat, and the parent agent must write that payload into review_report.md.

review_state.json

A machine-readable state file containing at least:

• ground_id
• round
• scores
• weighted_total
• verdict
• needs_repair
• repair_actions
• passed
• used_reviewer_role
• used_writer_role
• reviewer_agent_path
• writer_agent_path
• reviewer_model_hint
• writer_model_hint
• reviewer_independence
• final_report_path

This file should also be persisted by the parent/main agent. A read-only reviewer may populate its contents indirectly by returning structured review results to the parent agent.

research_report.md

The final deliverable research report for the current grounded item. This is the version that downstream output-format skills should use.

---

Reviewer Role and Independence

The review stage should be performed by a dedicated reviewer role / subagent when available.

Preferred behavior:

• writer role produces the draft
• reviewer role scores and diagnoses the draft
• writer role performs bounded repairs
• reviewer role re-checks the repaired draft

When your environment supports reviewer subagents with their own model configuration, prefer a reviewer model that is different from the writer model.

If a separate reviewer model is not available, the review stage may still run with the same base model, but it must explicitly record in review_state.json that reviewer independence is limited.

Do not let the same role simply "declare success" without rubric-based justification.

Execution Flow

The review stage must execute through a bounded loop with dedicated reviewer and writer subagents, not as a single monolithic pass in the parent context.

Required execution pattern

For every review task, the parent agent must follow this loop. The reviewer is either the external API (if reviewer_api_config is present) or the local reviewer subagent (if not present). The writer is always the local writer subagent via Task tool.

1. Call reviewer (Round 0):
   • If reviewer_api_config present: call call_ext_api.py via Shell → external API
   • If not present: launch reviewer subagent via Task tool
2. Parent agent archives the previous round (if round > 0: copy current round_n → round_{n-1}/)
3. Parent agent persists review_report.md and review_state.json to round_<N>/ directory
4. If verdict is repair and round < 5: launch writer subagent via Task tool to apply repairs, then go to step 6
5. If verdict is pass: launch writer subagent via Task tool to apply reviewer's suggested quality improvements (light repair), then skip to step 9
6. Call reviewer again (Round N+1) — same method as step 1:
   • If external mode: call call_ext_api.py
   • If local mode: launch reviewer subagent via Task tool
7. Parent agent archives the previous round → copy current round_n → round_{n-1}/
8. Parent agent persists the new round's review_report.md and review_state.json to round_<N>/
9. Repeat steps 4–8 for at most 5 repair rounds (pass verdicts jump from step 5 to finalize)
10. After reviewer passes (or loop exhausted): writer applies light repair → update review_history.json, symlinks, and finalize research_report.md

External Reviewer Mode

When reviewer_api_config is provided in the invocation, the review stage uses the external LLM API as the reviewer for all rounds of the bounded loop (Round 0, Round 1, ..., Round N). The external reviewer is not a one-shot first-round tool — it is the primary reviewer throughout. The same external API is called at each round after each writer repair, until the report passes or the loop is exhausted.

When to Use

Use external reviewer mode when:

• You want to use a specific external model for review (e.g., a cheaper or more capable model)
• You need to integrate with existing API infrastructure
• You want more control over the reviewer's model parameters

Execution Pattern

When external reviewer config is available, it is used for every review round throughout the bounded loop:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│               External Reviewer — All Rounds Loop                     │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                     │
│  Round 0:                                                            │
│  1. Parent Agent receives reviewer_api_config                        │
│  2. Parent Agent reads: grounded.md, lit.md, summary.md             │
│  3. Parent Agent constructs system + user prompts                   │
│  4. Parent Agent calls call_ext_api.py via Shell (Round 0)          │
│  5. Parse JSON → persist round_0/review_report.md + review_state.json│
│  6. If verdict=pass: launch writer for light repair → finalize      │
│  7. If verdict=repair: launch writer for repair → continue           │
│                                                                     │
│  Round N (N >= 1):                                                  │
│  8. Parent Agent reads: revised research_report.md + round_N-1/     │
│  9. Parent Agent constructs prompts with Round N-1 context          │
│  10. Parent Agent calls call_ext_api.py via Shell (Round N)         │
│  11. Parse JSON → persist round_N/review_report.md + review_state.json│
│  12. If verdict=pass: launch writer for light repair → finalize      │
│  13. If verdict=repair and N < 5: launch writer → continue           │
│  14. If verdict=repair and N >= 5: loop exhausted → finalize        │
│                                                                     │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Key invariant: whenever reviewer_api_config is present, the parent agent must use call_ext_api.py for every review round — not just Round 0. Switching to the local reviewer subagent mid-loop violates the external reviewer contract.

External Reviewer API Script

Use the standalone Python script call_ext_api.py for direct API calls.

Script location: .cursor/skills/grounded-review/external-reviewer/call_ext_api.py

Usage:

python .cursor/skills/grounded-review/external-reviewer/call_ext_api.py \
  --provider openai \
  --model gpt-4o-mini \
  --api-key "sk-xxx" \
  --base-url "https://api.example.com/v1" \
  --temperature 0.2 \
  --max-tokens 4096 \
  --system-prompt "Your reviewer role definition..." \
  --user-prompt "Review this report..."

Script output: JSON with { content, usage } or { error, status: "failed" }

Invocation method: Use the Shell tool to run the script and parse JSON output.

Prompt Construction for External Reviewer

System prompt (from .cursor/agents/reviewer.md):

• The reviewer role definition
• The scoring rubric (6 dimensions with weights)
• The verdict threshold rules
• The output format requirements

User prompt — Round 0 (initial review):

Construct from:

• The full content of grounded.md
• The full content of lit.md
• The full content of summary.md (current draft)
• Instructions to score and return structured JSON

User prompt — Round N (N >= 1, re-check after writer repair):

Construct from:

• The full content of grounded.md
• The full content of lit.md
• The current research_report.md (post-repair draft)
• data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N-1>/review_report.md (previous round diagnosis)
• Instructions: "This is Round N re-check. Round N-1 verdict was [repair/pass]. The writer applied [list repair actions]. Please score the revised draft and return structured JSON."

Response Parsing

The external API response is a JSON string. Parse it to extract:

{
  "content": "<model's response text>",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 1000,
    "completion_tokens": 500,
    "total_tokens": 1500
  }
}

The content should be parsed as a structured review payload with:

• scores: 6 dimension scores with raw/weight/subtotal
• weighted_total: computed weighted score
• verdict: "pass" | "repair"
• needs_repair: boolean
• repair_actions: array of {action, details}
• main_weaknesses: array of weakness descriptions

External vs Local Reviewer

Aspect	External Reviewer (Shell)	Local Reviewer (Task)
Model	Fully customizable	Configured in reviewer.md
Invocation	Shell + Python script	Task tool + subagent
Independence	Guaranteed (different API)	Depends on model config
Latency	Network call required	Faster (in-process)
Cost	External API pricing	Cursor subscription
Stability	No MCP connection issues	Stable (in-process)

Contract Compliance for External Reviewer

When using external reviewer, the following fields must still be recorded in review_state.json:

• used_reviewer_role: must be true
• used_writer_role: must be true (if repair was needed)
• reviewer_independence: must be "high" (external model is fully independent)
• reviewer_agent_path: null (no local reviewer agent used)
• reviewer_model_hint: the external model name from config
• external_reviewer_config: the full config used (for audit)

Error Handling

If external API call fails:

1. If fallback_to_local: true: retry with local Cursor reviewer
2. If fallback_to_local: false: report error and stop review

review_history.json format

After each round, append the round's summary to data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/review_history.json:

{
  "ground_id": "<ground_id>",
  "total_rounds": 2,
  "rounds": [
    {
      "round": 0,
      "weighted_total": 76.0,
      "verdict": "repair",
      "needs_repair": true,
      "scores": {
        "topic_alignment": {"raw": 4, "weight": 15, "subtotal": 12.0},
        "coverage_completeness": {"raw": 4, "weight": 20, "subtotal": 16.0},
        "evidence_specificity": {"raw": 4, "weight": 20, "subtotal": 16.0},
        "analytical_depth": {"raw": 3, "weight": 20, "subtotal": 12.0},
        "structure_and_narrative_coherence": {"raw": 4, "weight": 15, "subtotal": 12.0},
        "deliverability": {"raw": 4, "weight": 10, "subtotal": 8.0}
      },
      "repair_actions": [{"action": "...", "details": "..."}],
      "reviewer_agent_path": ".cursor/agents/reviewer.md",
      "writer_agent_path": null,
      "reviewer_model_hint": "<model from reviewer.md frontmatter>",
      "writer_model_hint": "<model from writer.md frontmatter>",
      "reviewer_independence": "high",
      "timestamp": "2026-04-06T14:54:00Z"
    },
    {
      "round": 1,
      "weighted_total": 93.0,
      "verdict": "pass",
      "needs_repair": false,
      "scores": {
        "topic_alignment": {"raw": 4, "weight": 15, "subtotal": 12.0},
        "coverage_completeness": {"raw": 5, "weight": 20, "subtotal": 20.0},
        "evidence_specificity": {"raw": 5, "weight": 20, "subtotal": 20.0},
        "analytical_depth": {"raw": 4, "weight": 20, "subtotal": 16.0},
        "structure_and_narrative_coherence": {"raw": 5, "weight": 15, "subtotal": 15.0},
        "deliverability": {"raw": 5, "weight": 10, "subtotal": 10.0}
      },
      "repair_actions": [],
      "reviewer_agent_path": ".cursor/agents/reviewer.md",
      "writer_agent_path": ".cursor/agents/writer.md",
      "reviewer_model_hint": "<model from reviewer.md frontmatter>",
      "writer_model_hint": "<model from writer.md frontmatter>",
      "reviewer_independence": "high",
      "timestamp": "2026-04-06T15:11:00Z"
    }
  ]
}

After the loop completes, also update the symlinks/copies at the root of review_outputs/<ground_id>/ so existing tooling that reads review_report.md and review_state.json directly continues to work.

Choosing Between External and Local Reviewer

Scenario	Recommended Approach
reviewer_api_config provided	External reviewer for all rounds via Shell + call_ext_api.py
reviewer_api_config provided, Round N API call fails + fallback_to_local: true	Retry with local reviewer for that round only; resume external for subsequent rounds
reviewer_api_config provided, Round N API call fails + fallback_to_local: false	Report error and stop review
reviewer_api_config NOT provided	Local reviewer via Task tool (all rounds)

Critical rule: When reviewer_api_config is provided, the parent agent must not switch to the local reviewer subagent after Round 0. The external API is the designated reviewer for every round. Using the local reviewer mid-loop violates the contract, regardless of whether the local reviewer could produce a valid score.

CRITICAL: The reviewer subagent must be created via Task tool with subagent_type="generalPurpose". The prompt must start with an agent role declaration block to trigger Cursor's agent auto-matching, which will load .cursor/agents/reviewer.md and its frontmatter model field. The reviewer is read-only — it must not write files directly.

Use the Task tool with subagent_type="generalPurpose". The prompt must start with:

---
You are operating as the **REVIEWER AGENT** (grounded-review-reviewer).
Read and follow .cursor/agents/reviewer.md now to load your reviewer configuration and model.
---

Then the prompt must include:

• The exact ground_id for the current grounded unit
• Instruction to read .cursor/agents/reviewer.md first
• Instruction to read the canonical inputs: grounded.md, lit.md, summary.md, and available supporting artifacts
• Instruction to return a structured review payload

Example reviewer Task invocation:

---
You are operating as the **REVIEWER AGENT** (grounded-review-reviewer).
Read and follow .cursor/agents/reviewer.md now to load your reviewer configuration and model.
---

Use the grounded-review skill to review the current report draft.

ground_id: <the current grounded unit ID, e.g. "meeting_001_topic01">
round: <current round number, e.g. 0>

Inputs to read:
- data/grounded_notes/<ground_id>/grounded.md
- data/lit_results/<ground_id>/lit.md
- data/report_inputs/<ground_id>/summary.md
- data/reports/<ground_id>/research_report.md (if it already exists — read before scoring)
- data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N-1>/review_report.md (if round > 0 — for repair progress context)
- data/lit_inputs/<ground_id>/opened_paper_notes.jsonl (if exists)
- data/lit_downloads/<ground_id>/manifest.json (if exists)
- data/lit_inputs/<ground_id>/refine_coverage.json (if exists)

Task: Score the current draft using the rubric in grounded-review/SKILL.md,
check hard gates, diagnose weaknesses, produce minimum repair actions, and return a structured
review payload in your response.

IMPORTANT: Do NOT write files directly. Return a structured diagnosis
payload that the parent agent will persist to disk at data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N>/.
The payload must include:
  - scores (all 6 dimensions with raw/weight/subtotal)
  - weighted_total
  - verdict (pass / repair)
  - needs_repair (boolean)
  - repair_actions (array of {action, details})
  - passed (boolean)
  - reviewer_independence: "high" (because reviewer agent loaded a dedicated model from reviewer.md)
  - used_reviewer_role: true (explicitly record this)
  - reviewer_agent_path: ".cursor/agents/reviewer.md"
  - reviewer_model_hint: "<model slug from reviewer.md frontmatter>"
  - timestamp: "<ISO 8601 timestamp, e.g. '2026-04-06T14:54:00Z'>"

Note: The actual model used by the reviewer subagent is determined entirely by the model field in .cursor/agents/reviewer.md frontmatter. SKILL.md example prompts use a placeholder — the real value comes from the agent file.

Task tool invocation for writer

CRITICAL: The writer subagent must be created via Task tool with subagent_type="generalPurpose". The prompt must start with an agent role declaration block to trigger Cursor's agent auto-matching, which will load .cursor/agents/writer.md and its frontmatter model field. Do not skip this step even if the repair is simple.

Do not let the parent context apply repairs directly. The bounded repair loop requires a dedicated writer subagent. If verdict == "repair" and round < 2, the parent agent must launch a writer subagent via Task tool — it must not apply repairs in its own context.

Use the Task tool with subagent_type="generalPurpose". The prompt must start with:

---
You are operating as the **WRITER AGENT** (grounded-review-writer).
Read and follow .cursor/agents/writer.md now to load your writer configuration.
---

Then the prompt must include:

• The exact ground_id for the current grounded unit
• Instruction to read .cursor/agents/writer.md first
• The repair actions approved by the reviewer
• Instruction to preserve the draft's structure and substance

Example writer Task invocation:

---
You are operating as the **WRITER AGENT** (grounded-review-writer).
Read and follow .cursor/agents/writer.md now to load your writer configuration.
---

Use the grounded-review skill to repair the current report draft.
Do NOT skip reading writer.md.

ground_id: <the current grounded unit ID>

Repair actions approved by the reviewer (apply ONLY these — do NOT improvise additional changes):
- [list the minimum repair actions from the reviewer diagnosis]

Inputs to read:
- data/reports/<ground_id>/research_report.md (current draft — read before revising)
- data/grounded_notes/<ground_id>/grounded.md
- data/lit_results/<ground_id>/lit.md
- data/report_inputs/<ground_id>/summary.md
- data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N-1>/review_report.md (previous round diagnosis)

Task: Apply ONLY the specified repair actions. Preserve the draft's
structure and substance. Produce the revised report body and write it to
data/reports/<ground_id>/research_report.md.

IMPORTANT: You are the writer role. Only apply the specified repair actions.
Do NOT self-approve or declare the final verdict. Return the revised report body
for the reviewer to re-check.

After the writer completes, record in your response:
  - used_writer_role: true
  - writer_agent_path: ".cursor/agents/writer.md"
  - writer_model_hint: "<model from writer.md frontmatter, e.g. 'inherit'>"
  - repair_actions_applied: [list what was actually applied]

Loop termination

|| Condition | Action | ||-----------|--------| || weighted_total >= 90 and no hard-gate failure | Pass — launch writer for light repair, then finalize (no re-review needed) | || weighted_total < 90 or any hard-gate failure | Repair — run writer repair, then re-review via bounded loop (max 5 rounds) | || Initial + 5 repair rounds exhausted without pass | Finalize with explicit "loop exhausted" status in review_state.json |

Pass verdict: light repair without re-review

Pass means the report meets the quality gate. It does not mean the report is perfect or that reviewer diagnoses should be discarded.

When verdict is pass but the reviewer identified quality improvement suggestions (even if not hard-gate failures):

1. The parent agent launches a writer subagent via Task tool to apply the reviewer's suggested improvements.
2. The writer reads the reviewer diagnosis and applies only the suggested improvements.
3. No re-review round is triggered — the report is finalized directly after writer completes.
4. review_state.json records used_writer_role: true and repair_actions: [suggested improvements applied].

The distinction from the repair loop:

• Repair loop (verdict = repair): writer repairs → reviewer re-checks → repeat. The reviewer gate determines when to stop.
• Light repair after pass (verdict = pass): writer applies suggestions → done. No reviewer re-check because the gate already passed.

This ensures reviewer diagnoses are never discarded, but avoids infinite re-review cycles when the report already meets quality standards.

Repair Enforcement Rule

This is a hard rule. Violations must not be silently accepted.

When a reviewer subagent returns verdict == "repair" and round < 5:

1. The parent agent must launch a writer subagent via Task tool.
2. The parent agent must not apply repairs in its own context.
3. After the writer completes, the parent agent must launch a reviewer subagent again for re-check.

If used_writer_role == false when verdict == "repair" and round < 2, the bounded repair loop was not executed. This is a contract violation regardless of whether research_report.md was written.

Remedy: Re-run the repair loop by launching a writer subagent, then re-review. Do not finalize with a repair verdict still pending.

In practice: Before finalizing research_report.md, check review_state.json. If verdict == "repair" and used_writer_role == false, re-launch the writer subagent and complete the loop.

Subagent File Contract

When your Cursor environment supports custom subagents, the review stage should use the following files when present:

• .cursor/agents/reviewer.md
• .cursor/agents/writer.md

Expected role split

Reviewer subagent

The reviewer subagent is responsible for:

• reading grounded.md, lit.md, summary.md, and available supporting artifacts
• assigning rubric scores
• checking hard gates
• diagnosing concrete weaknesses
• producing the repair plan
• re-checking the revised draft
• deciding pass / repair / insufficient

The reviewer should not be the primary author of the final report body except for the diagnosis documents.

If the reviewer subagent is configured as read-only, it should not directly modify repository files. In that case, it should return a structured diagnosis payload to the parent agent, and the parent agent must write:

• data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N>/review_report.md
• data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N>/review_state.json

from the reviewer output.

The reviewer is therefore responsible for the content of the review, while the parent agent is responsible for persisting that content to disk in the appropriate round_<N>/ directory when the reviewer cannot write files directly.

Writer subagent

The writer subagent is responsible for:

• preserving the draft structure where possible
• performing only the approved repair actions
• revising the report into research_report.md
• not inventing new evidence or new citations
• returning the revised report for reviewer re-check

The writer should not self-approve the final report without reviewer confirmation.

The writer may write research_report.md directly because the writer is the editing role. However, the writer must not overwrite review_report.md or review_state.json with its own independent judgement. Those files must reflect the reviewer-approved diagnosis and verdict.

Preferred execution order

When reviewer/writer subagents are available, use this order (as detailed in the Execution Flow section above):

1. Parent agent launches reviewer subagent via Task tool to score and diagnose the current draft
2. Parent agent creates round_<N>/ directory and persists review_report.md and review_state.json from the reviewer output
3. Parent agent launches writer subagent via Task tool to apply the approved repair actions (if verdict is repair and round < 5)
4. Parent agent archives the current round: if round > 0, copy round_<N>/ → round_<N-1>/
5. Parent agent launches reviewer subagent via Task tool to re-check the revised draft
6. Parent agent creates a new round_<N+1>/ directory and persists the new review_report.md and review_state.json
7. Repeat steps 3–6 for at most 5 repair rounds
8. Only after reviewer passes, update review_history.json, update symlinks/copies at review_outputs/<ground_id>/, and finalize research_report.md

The parent agent must not skip the Task-tool subagent calls or collapse the reviewer → writer → reviewer cycle into a single pass.

If the subagents are unavailable, the same base model may simulate both roles, but the role separation and reviewer_independence record must still be preserved.

Reviewer return contract

A reviewer subagent may be configured as read-only. If so, it should return a structured review payload in chat rather than trying to write files directly. That payload must contain enough information for the parent agent to persist both:

• data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N>/review_report.md
• data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N>/review_state.json

The parent agent must not skip file persistence merely because the reviewer role was read-only.

Parent-agent persistence rule

The parent/main agent is always responsible for ensuring that the required output files exist on disk at the end of the review stage. Read-only reviewer configuration does not relax the output-file requirement.

---

Core Review Responsibilities

The review stage should check and improve the report draft along these dimensions:

1. Topic alignment

Check whether the draft remains tightly aligned with:

• the grounded topic
• the source-derived problem setting
• the actual decision needs of the current project

Downweight or remove weakly related literature that inflates length without improving relevance.

2. Coverage completeness

Check whether the report adequately covers:

• the major grounded questions
• the most important themes from lit.md
• relevant downloaded and parsable papers when such coverage is expected from the research stage

3. Evidence specificity

Check whether major claims are actually supported by:

• the grounded note
• the literature result
• downloaded/opened evidence when available

If not, soften, qualify, or remove them.

4. Analytical depth

Check whether the report explains:

• what the method/problem actually is
• why a design matters
• what the evidence really supports
• what remains uncertain

5. Structure and narrative coherence

Check whether the report is well structured and readable.

You may reorganize or rewrite for clarity, but do not remove substance merely to make it shorter or cleaner.

6. Deliverability

Check whether the report is strong enough to be handed to the output layer.

The result should be:

• structurally clear
• technically grounded
• evidence-aware
• readable
• suitable for rendering/export

7. Removal of search-process noise

Check whether the report draft contains:

• query counts
• hit counts
• opened-link counts
• download counts
• manifest-like inventories
• retrieval execution commentary

These do not belong in the final report body and should be removed.

---

Review Authority Boundary

This skill may:

• revise wording
• reorganize material
• restore omitted important details
• improve balance across sections
• soften unsupported claims
• clarify evidence strength
• strengthen section transitions
• improve the final report structure
• trigger one bounded targeted evidence-recovery action when the current inputs are clearly insufficient

This skill must not:

• add new external evidence casually or without diagnosis
• run a full new literature survey by default
• fabricate experiments
• invent citations
• move substantive literature analysis out of the report body just to shorten the document
• change the research direction without support from the inputs
• run an unbounded repair loop

---

Structured Scoring Rubric

Before rewriting the final report, score the current draft across the following dimensions.

Use a 1–5 scale for each dimension, where:

• 1 = very weak / seriously insufficient
• 2 = weak
• 3 = acceptable but clearly imperfect
• 4 = strong
• 5 = very strong

Dimensions

1. topic_alignment
2. coverage_completeness
3. evidence_specificity
4. analytical_depth
5. structure_and_narrative_coherence
6. deliverability

Weights

Use the following weights when computing the weighted total (/100):

• topic_alignment: 15
• coverage_completeness: 20
• evidence_specificity: 20
• analytical_depth: 20
• structure_and_narrative_coherence: 15
• deliverability: 10

Weighted total formula

Compute the final weighted total as:

weighted_total =

• (topic_alignment / 5) * 15
• + (coverage_completeness / 5) * 20
• + (evidence_specificity / 5) * 20
• + (analytical_depth / 5) * 20
• + (structure_and_narrative_coherence / 5) * 15
• + (deliverability / 5) * 10

Rules:

• use exactly this formula
• do not invent any alternative scaling rule
• do not rescale weights
• round only at the final reported total if needed
• keep the unrounded internal calculation consistent with the displayed subtotal values

Required score presentation rule

For each dimension, the review report must explicitly show:

• the raw score (for example 4/5)
• the weight
• the weighted subtotal computed as (score / 5) × weight
• an evidence-backed explanation

For example:

• topic_alignment: 4/5, weight=15, subtotal=12.0

The final weighted_total must equal the sum of the six displayed subtotals.

If the displayed subtotals and final total are inconsistent, the review is invalid and must be corrected before finalizing review_report.md or review_state.json.

Scoring rule

Every score must be evidence-backed.

Do not assign a score without explicitly naming:

• what in the current draft supports the score
• what in the current draft weakens the score
• which sections or paper analyses are responsible for the weakness

The review report must not contain empty statements such as “depth is somewhat weak” without concrete explanation.

---

Dimension-specific scoring constraints

Use the following concrete rules to disambiguate score boundaries. These constraints reduce subjective leniency and make scoring consistent across reviewers.

1. topic_alignment

Score	Condition
5/5	All grounded project directions are addressed with dedicated coverage; no drift; source context fully preserved
4/5	All directions covered, but 1-2 minor tangential sections present OR 1 important nuance from source weakened
3/5	1 grounded direction missing or substantially weakened; moderate drift detected
2/5 or below	Multiple directions missing or severely weakened; substantial drift

Constraint: A direction that appears in grounded.md must appear in the report with comparable depth. Downweighting is permitted; silent omission is not. Assigning 4/5 requires naming exactly which section is tangential or which nuance was weakened.

2. coverage_completeness

Score	Condition
5/5	All lit.md papers analyzed; all major themes covered; unresolved questions match lit.md's scope
4/5	All papers present but 1-2 papers receive shallow analysis; OR 1 theme underdeveloped
3/5	1-2 papers silently omitted OR 2+ papers shallow; major theme missing or placeholder-level
2/5 or below	Multiple papers omitted; report is clearly thinner than lit.md

Constraint: Each downloaded PDF must be explicitly acknowledged with its refinement contribution. Assigning 4/5 requires naming exactly which paper(s) are shallow and what is missing. Assigning 3/5 or below requires naming the specific paper(s) omitted or shallow.

3. evidence_specificity

Score	Condition
5/5	Every major claim cites specific numbers from lit.md; unvalidated claims are explicitly flagged with evidence boundary
4/5	Most claims supported by numbers, but 1-2 claims lack specific quantification OR 1 unvalidated claim not flagged
3/5	Several claims lack quantitative support; OR 2+ unvalidated claims presented without flag
2/5 or below	Most claims unsupported; overclaiming pervasive

Constraint: The phrase "unvalidated claim" must appear in the review when a grounded note claim is not matched by published literature. Assigning 4/5 requires naming the specific unsupported claim(s) and where they appear. A report that presents a claim like "within 3 centimeters" without flagging it as unvalidated cannot receive 5/5.

4. analytical_depth

Score	Condition
5/5	For every major unresolved question: explains WHY it is unresolved, what evidence bears on it, and what would resolve it
4/5	Most questions analyzed, but 1-2 questions only restated without explaining the causal gap; OR 1 question lacks actionability
3/5	Analysis stays on the surface; questions mostly restated rather than analyzed; few causal explanations
2/5 or below	No genuine analysis; report is a summary without synthesis

Constraint: Assigning 4/5 requires naming the specific question(s) that were restated without causal analysis. Simply labeling a question "unresolved" does not count as analysis. The reviewer must identify why existing evidence does not resolve it and what specific evidence would.

5. structure_and_narrative_coherence

Score	Condition
5/5	Each piece of evidence appears exactly once at its most relevant depth level; transitions guide the reader logically
4/5	1-2 instances of material appearing multiple times at equivalent depth levels, creating minor friction
3/5	3+ instances of repetition OR 1 major structural flaw; transitions weak
2/5 or below	Report is disorganized; reader cannot follow the argument

Constraint: When the same paper's methodology appears in both the grounded findings section and the detailed paper analysis section and the thematic synthesis section, each duplicate appearance counts as one repetition instance. Three repeated paper discussions in three locations constitutes 3 repetition instances, which pushes toward 3/5. Assigning 4/5 requires naming the specific repeated content and its locations.

6. deliverability

Score	Condition
5/5	Every next-step recommendation is accompanied by sufficient justification; every risk has named source and consequence
4/5	Most recommendations actionable, but 1-2 are vague; OR 1-2 risks lack named source
3/5	Multiple vague recommendations; OR report has placeholder sections; OR 2+ risks lack named source
2/5 or below	Recommendations are generic; report is not ready for downstream output rendering

Constraint: A recommendation is vague if it cannot be acted upon without additional research. "Access ShowHowTo's full paper" is specific and actionable; "improve the evaluation" is not. A risk lacks a named source if it references "the literature" without naming specific papers or findings. Assigning 4/5 requires naming the specific vague recommendation(s) or unnamed risk(s).

Hard Gates

The report must not pass directly if any of the following are true:

• topic_alignment < 3/5
• coverage_completeness < 3/5
• evidence_specificity < 3/5
• analytical_depth < 3/5

The report must also fail the gate if any of the following are true:

• important downloaded-and-parsable papers that should be covered are silently omitted
• multiple paper analyses are clearly placeholder-like or generic
• the report drifts substantially away from the grounded topic
• the report is clearly thinner than summary.md or lit.md on core technical substance

---

Verdict Logic

After scoring, assign one of two verdicts:

• pass
• repair (no report is discarded)

Suggested thresholds

• Pass: weighted total >= 90 and no hard-gate failure
• Repair: weighted total < 90, or any hard-gate weakness (no report is discarded)

The verdict must be justified in review_report.md.

---

Repair Loop

The repair loop must be bounded.

Maximum rounds

The bounded loop consists of:

• Round 0: initial review by reviewer subagent
• Round 1 (optional): writer subagent repair → reviewer subagent re-check
• Round 2 (optional): writer subagent repair → reviewer subagent re-check
• Round 3 (optional): writer subagent repair → reviewer subagent re-check
• Round 4 (optional): writer subagent repair → reviewer subagent re-check
• Round 5 (optional): writer subagent repair → reviewer subagent re-check

Do not loop beyond round 5.

Repair-first rule

Do not rewrite immediately after a vague negative impression.

First produce:

• scores
• weaknesses
• repair priorities
• minimum repair actions

Then repair.

The diagnosis step must be produced by the reviewer subagent via Task tool. The repair step must be performed by the writer subagent via Task tool. See the Execution Flow section above for the required Task invocation patterns.

The parent agent must not skip the reviewer → writer → reviewer cycle even for a simple-seeming repair. Each round must produce a new reviewer verdict before deciding whether to stop.

Repair categories

Use the minimum repair action that addresses the weakness:

1. rewrite_existing_sections
2. restore_omitted_literature_detail
3. deepen_weak_paper_analyses
4. remove_or_downweight_weakly_relevant_material
5. repair_downloaded_paper_coverage
6. targeted_supplementary_research

Targeted supplementary research rule

Do not re-run the full research stage by default.

Only use targeted_supplementary_research if the reviewer explicitly diagnoses that:

• the current inputs are genuinely insufficient to meet the quality gate, and
• the weakness cannot be repaired by better use of lit.md, summary.md, or the available notes.

If supplementary research is needed, keep it narrow and clearly scoped to the diagnosed gap.

---

Final Report Writing Rules

1. Preserve the report-draft role of summary.md

Treat summary.md as the main report draft, not as a short memo to be heavily rewritten.

The final report should usually remain close to the draft’s major structure unless the draft structure is genuinely weak.

2. Never compress rich literature analysis into shallow recap

If the draft already contains strong literature-based analysis, keep it in the final report body.

Do not reduce rich thematic analysis into:

• a few generic bullets
• a tiny “literature support” paragraph
• a background-only aside

3. Preserve important technical detail

If the underlying materials contain:

• important numeric facts
• concrete failure modes
• architecture branches
• method-specific disagreements
• design alternatives
• evidence-strength distinctions
• important caveats about transfer or evaluation

then keep them when they materially affect understanding.

4. Express evidence strength carefully

Use wording such as:

• strongly supported
• directly supported in a similar setting
• partially supported
• directionally supported
• conceptually relevant but not directly validated here
• limited evidence
• unresolved by current evidence

Do not overclaim.

5. Prefer body integration over appendix-style dumping

The final report should carry the most relevant literature analysis inside the main body, especially in the deep-analysis and integrated-assessment sections.

Do not exile important literature content to the end of the report unless it is truly peripheral.

6. Do not include process diagnostics in the report body

Do not include:

• number of search queries
• number of hits
• number of opened links
• number of downloads
• file manifests
• retrieval QA commentary
• review-loop score tables or repair-loop bookkeeping

7. Preserve real unresolved questions

The final report should not artificially flatten genuine uncertainty.

If the research question remains unresolved, say so clearly.

8. Do not optimize for brevity alone

There is no benefit in making the final report shorter if that shortness destroys understanding.

A final report may be the same length as the draft or even slightly longer if that is necessary to restore omitted substance or improve clarity.

---

Required Final Report Structure

Write the final report with the following structure.

Research Report

1. Executive Overview

Write 2–4 substantial paragraphs.

This section should clearly state:

• the problem or task setting
• the current understanding
• the most important grounded findings
• the most important literature-backed insights
• the most important unresolved bottleneck or decision point

2. Problem Setting and Source Context

Write 2–5 substantial paragraphs explaining:

• the grounded source context
• the current project state
• relevant constraints, goals, and stakes
• the setup assumptions needed to understand the report

3. Grounded Findings from the Source Material

Preserve the most important source-derived findings, such as:

• concrete observations
• design branches
• current hypotheses and conclusions
• constraints, disagreements, or anomalies
• implementation or evaluation concerns

Prefer focused paragraphs or short thematic subsections, not generic bullets.

4. Literature-Based Deep Analysis

This should remain a major body section, not a thin recap.

Organize it into 3–6 thematic subsections when the material supports that depth.

For each theme, preserve:

• why the theme matters
• what the literature actually says
• the support strength for the current project
• mismatch, transfer limits, or caveats
• the practical implication for the current project

5. Integrated Assessment for the Current Project

Write 2–5 substantial paragraphs synthesizing grounded evidence and literature evidence into a project-level assessment.

6. Unresolved Questions and Decision-Critical Gaps

Write 4–8 substantial items describing:

• the unresolved issue
• why it matters
• what evidence is missing
• what would reduce the uncertainty

7. Recommended Next Steps

Write 4–7 concrete actions, each with enough explanation to make the action meaningful.

8. Key Risks, Caveats, and Evidence Boundaries

Write 4–8 items preserving:

• methodological risks
• evidence-transfer risks
• evaluation risks
• data or generalization risks
• hidden assumptions and caveats

---

Required Review Report Structure

Write review_report.md with the following structure:

Review Report

1. Current Draft Evaluation

• brief verdict summary
• weighted total score
• whether reviewer independence was high or limited

2. Rubric Scores

List each dimension with:

• raw score
• weight
• weighted subtotal computed as (score / 5) × weight
• evidence-backed explanation

3. Hard-Gate Failures

State clearly whether any hard gate failed and why.

4. Main Weaknesses

List the most important weaknesses in priority order.

5. Minimum Repair Actions

For each weakness, specify the minimum repair needed.

6. Round Outcome

State one of:

• pass
• repair
• insufficient

If pass, say why. If repair, say what was repaired or still must be repaired. If insufficient, say what blocks deliverability.

---

Round Archival

The review stage uses a per-round archival pattern to preserve full review history for retrospective comparison across rounds.

Archival Logic

1. Round 0: Create round_0/ directory. Write review_report.md and review_state.json to round_0/. Initialize review_history.json with the Round 0 summary.

2. Transition from round N to round N+1: Create a new round_<N+1>/ directory. Write the new round's files there. Append the round's summary to review_history.json.

3. Loop termination: Update review_history.json, update root-level symlinks/copies for backward compatibility, and finalize research_report.md.

What to Archive

Archive the following per round:

• review_report.md — full diagnosis text for that round
• review_state.json — full state snapshot for that round

Do not archive:

• research_report.md — updated in place at data/reports/<ground_id>/research_report.md
• review_notes.md — if present, not archived

Why Round Numbers Start at 0

Round 0 = initial review before any repair. Round 1 = first repair round. Round 2 = second repair round. Round 3 = third repair round. Round 4 = fourth repair round. Round 5 = fifth repair round. This makes it easy to diff round_0/ round_1/ to see exactly what changed.

No Overwriting Historical Rounds

Once a round_<N>/ directory is written, it is immutable for that round. The parent agent must never overwrite a historical directory — only create new round_<N+1>/ directories.

---

Strength Requirement

The final report should be:

• more evidence-aligned than summary.md
• at least as informative as summary.md
• richer and more deliverable than a compressed memo
• suitable for direct use by downstream output-format skills

It should not be:

• shorter but emptier
• a search log
• a lightly edited copy that still loses major literature depth
• a presentation-formatting artifact

---

Completion Criteria

This task is complete only if ALL of the following are true:

1. grounded.md was actually read
2. lit.md was actually read
3. summary.md was actually read
4. For each completed round, a structured review_report.md was written to:
   • data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N>/review_report.md
5. For each completed round, a machine-readable review_state.json was written to:
   • data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/round_<N>/review_state.json
6. review_history.json was written to:
   • data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/review_history.json
7. Root-level symlinks/copies exist for backward compatibility:
   • data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/review_report.md
   • data/review_outputs/<ground_id>/review_state.json
8. a real final report was written to:
   • data/reports/<ground_id>/research_report.md
9. the final report preserves relevant deep literature analysis in the main body
10. the final report is clearly more deliverable than the draft without becoming thinner
11. the final report body does not drift into search-process recap or review-loop bookkeeping
12. the report either:
    • passed the quality gate, or
    • exhausted the bounded repair loop and explicitly recorded the remaining blockers
13. used_reviewer_role === true in review_state.json — reviewer was created via Task tool OR via call_ext_api.py (external API); if external reviewer was used, reviewer_agent_path must be null and external_reviewer_config must be present
14. reviewer_independence !== "unknown" in review_state.json — independence was verified
15. used_writer_role === true in review_state.json — writer was created via Task tool (required for both repair verdicts AND pass verdicts with suggested improvements)
16. reviewer_agent_path is correctly set: null if external reviewer via call_ext_api.py; path to .cursor/agents/reviewer.md if local reviewer via Task tool. When reviewer_api_config is present, reviewer_agent_path must be null and external_reviewer_config must be populated.
17. All historical rounds preserved: each round_<N>/ directory is intact and was never overwritten
18. review_history.json is consistent: its rounds array matches the review_state.json of each round_<N>/ directory

If any of checks 13–18 fail, the review stage is incomplete regardless of whether output files exist. Re-execute the review properly.

Subagent Metadata Recording

review_state.json must record the following subagent-related fields. These are not optional — they verify that the bounded loop with reviewer/writer subagents was actually executed:

• used_reviewer_role: must be true — if external reviewer via call_ext_api.py, still counts as reviewer creation; if false, the review was run monolithically in the parent context, which violates this skill's contract.
• used_writer_role: must be true if a writer subagent was launched via Task tool. This is required for both repair verdicts AND pass verdicts with reviewer-suggested improvements. If false when verdict was pass and the reviewer provided suggestions, the light repair step was skipped, which violates the skill contract.
• reviewer_agent_path: null if external reviewer via call_ext_api.py; path to .cursor/agents/reviewer.md if local reviewer via Task tool.
• writer_agent_path: path to .cursor/agents/writer.md or the subagent config used, or null if no dedicated writer agent was found.
• reviewer_model_hint: explicit model slug from the reviewer agent config if configured, otherwise inherit or unknown.
• writer_model_hint: explicit model slug from the writer agent config if configured, otherwise inherit or unknown.
• reviewer_independence: high if reviewer uses a clearly different model from the writer, limited if the same inherited model was used, unknown if not determinable.
• repair_rounds_completed: integer count of repair rounds that were actually executed (0 if no repair was needed; incremented only on repair verdicts).
• light_repair_after_pass: boolean. true if verdict was pass and the writer was launched to apply reviewer-suggested improvements without re-review. false if no light repair was performed after a pass verdict.

If used_reviewer_role is false, the review must be treated as not properly executed per this skill's contract, regardless of whether review_report.md and research_report.md were written.

---

Verification and Self-Check

Before treating the review stage as complete, the executing agent must verify review_state.json against the following checklist. If any check fails, the review stage is incomplete and must be re-executed properly.

Checklist

Check	Condition	If fails
used_reviewer_role === true	Reviewer subagent via Task tool OR external API via call_ext_api.py	Review incomplete — re-execute reviewer properly
reviewer_agent_path !== null OR external_reviewer_config present	If local reviewer: path set; if external reviewer: null + config present	Review incomplete — ensure reviewer config is recorded
reviewer_independence !== "unknown"	Independence was explicitly recorded	Review incomplete — re-execute reviewer properly
verdict !== "repair" OR (verdict === "repair" AND used_writer_role === true AND round < 5)	If verdict is repair and round < 5, writer must be called	Review incomplete — launch writer subagent and complete repair loop
verdict === "repair" AND round >= 5 AND used_writer_role === true	Loop limit reached, loop exhausted correctly	Finalize with loop_status=exhausted
For repair: writer_agent_path !== null	Writer read .cursor/agents/writer.md	Review incomplete — re-execute writer with proper agent
All 6 rubric scores present	scores object has all dimensions	Review incomplete — re-execute reviewer
weighted_total consistent with scores	Sum of (score/5)*weight matches	Review invalid — re-execute reviewer
round_<N>/ directory created for each completed round	Each round's files are in its own directory	Review incomplete — archive files to correct round_<N>/
review_history.json exists and contains all rounds	History records match the review_state.json of each round	Review incomplete — rebuild review_history.json from round directories
No historical round directory was overwritten	Only new round_<N+1>/ directories are created; existing round_<N>/ unchanged	Review incomplete — restore from backup if available

Self-healing after verification failure

If a review_state.json already exists with used_reviewer_role === false, the review was not properly executed. The agent must:

1. If external reviewer mode was used: re-call call_ext_api.py for the current round with the full reviewer payload, and re-persist review_state.json with used_reviewer_role: true and reviewer_agent_path: null.
2. If local reviewer mode was used: re-launch a reviewer subagent via Task tool using the reviewer invocation pattern.
3. If verdict was repair and used_writer_role === false, re-launch a writer subagent and complete the repair loop.

The presence of review_report.md and research_report.md on disk does not mean the review was properly executed. The metadata fields in review_state.json are the authoritative record of contract compliance.

---