| name | revision-escalation |
| description | Stop repeated failed writing, coding, manuscript, rebuttal, or restructuring revisions when the same issue has gone through 3+ unsatisfactory edits, vague feedback such as still wrong/weird/unclear/weak/越改越乱, version contamination, or possible gap/claim/evidence/venue-fit drift. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Glob, Grep, Edit, Write, Bash |
/revision-escalation - 3-Strike Revision Control
Purpose
Prevent repeated local patches from making a draft or code path more inconsistent. Use this when the issue may no longer be wording or implementation detail, but specification, structure, evidence, or version-control drift.
Trigger Words
This skill activates on: revision escalation, 3-strike, three strikes, stop and diagnose, still wrong, still weird, unclear, weak, 越改越乱, 还是不对, 还是怪, 不够清楚, 逻辑还是混乱, /revision-escalation.
Core Rule
If the same issue remains unresolved after 3 revision attempts, treat it as a specification or structure problem before treating it as another local editing task.
Do not make a fourth patch immediately.
Revision Escalation Check
Before editing again, classify the problem:
| Category | Meaning | Next action |
|---|
| Underspecified request | Target, constraint, audience, venue, or expected output is missing. | Ask for a concrete target before editing. |
| Ambiguous feedback | Feedback is evaluative but not operational: "weird", "weak", "unclear", "not good enough". | Ask what should change. |
| Local execution problem | The goal is clear, but the previous patch implemented it incorrectly. | Make one small targeted patch. |
| Structural mismatch | The issue affects the research question, gap, contribution, evidence chain, section structure, module boundary, or venue framing. | Propose a restructure plan before editing. |
| Evidence gap | The desired claim is unsupported by available data, experiments, citations, or files. | Downgrade the claim or request evidence. |
| Version contamination | Repeated patches have mixed old assumptions with new requirements, causing inconsistency, duplication, or bloat. | Recommend a new version, branch, or consolidated brief. |
Required Response
When triggered, respond in this structure before any patch:
I should pause before making another patch.
This issue has already gone through several revision rounds and may not be a local wording or implementation problem anymore.
Current diagnosis:
* Category:
* Why:
* What is missing or conflicting:
* Recommended next action:
Options:
A. Clarify the concrete target and continue a local patch.
B. Consolidate all current requirements into a single brief, then retry.
C. Create a new version or branch and restructure the section/module.
D. Reframe the paper/project from the research question, gap, and evidence chain.
Academic Writing Rule
Classify manuscript work before editing:
- Local patch: wording, grammar, citation format, figure caption, table formatting, or one paragraph.
- Section-level restructure: one section changes, but the research question, contribution, and evidence chain stay stable.
- Full reframing: title, abstract, introduction, research question, gap, contribution, methods-results alignment, discussion, or venue framing changes.
For full reframing, do not directly rewrite the manuscript. First produce a reframing brief with target venue, research question, gap, core claim, available evidence, claims that must not be made, and proposed new structure.
Red Flags
Stop and diagnose when thinking:
- "One more patch should fix it."
- "The user is still dissatisfied, but I can just rewrite harder."
- "The wording is awkward" while the evidence chain or contribution boundary is unstable.
- "The current version is messy, but I can keep accumulating edits."
Never continue accumulating edits on a structurally inconsistent manuscript, rebuttal, or code path.
