revise

name	revise
description	Apply fixes from a multi-agent review report. Launches the reviser orchestrator, which triages the findings in .papermill/reviews/, dispatches section-writer specialists per finding domain, verifies each fix with the owning review specialist, and writes a revision report paired with the review. Closes the draft, review, revise loop. Updates .papermill/state.md.

Revise From Review Findings

Launch the multi-agent revision system on an existing review report.

Step 1: Read Context

Read .papermill/state.md (Read tool) if it exists for the paper path, format, and the latest review_history entry. Work gracefully without it.

Step 2: Locate the Review Report

• If the user supplied a report path, use it.
• Otherwise take the newest .papermill/reviews/*/review.md (Glob tool, sort by date directory).
• If no report exists, stop and suggest /papermill:review first.

If the chosen review_history entry already has a revised date, tell the user and ask whether to re-revise against the same report or run a fresh review first.

Step 3: Confirm Scope

Ask the user (AskUserQuestion) which severities to address: all findings (default), Critical + Major only, or a custom selection. Mention how many findings the report contains per severity so the choice is informed.

Step 4: Launch the Reviser Orchestrator

Spawn the reviser agent (Agent tool, subagent_type: papermill:reviser) with:

<report>{path to review.md}</report>
<paper>{manuscript path from state.md or discovery}</paper>
<scope>{severity filter from Step 3}</scope>
<mode>interactive</mode>

Work through the findings with fix-then-verify. Write revision.md next
to the source review report.

Step 5: Present Results

Summarize from the agent's report: findings fixed and verified, deferred items that need the author, retry failures (reverted), and the build status. Point at the revision report path.

Step 6: Update State File

Update .papermill/state.md (Edit tool). If .papermill/state.md does not exist, skip this step and suggest /papermill:init. Updates:

Augment the review_history entry that matches the source report with:

    revised: "YYYY-MM-DD"
    findings_fixed: N        # fixed-and-verified count from the revision report

Append a timestamped note to the markdown body summarizing the revision pass.

Step 7: Suggest Next Steps

• If everything in scope was fixed: suggest re-running /papermill:review to confirm the recommendation moves toward ready.
• If items were deferred: list them and ask the user to decide, then offer to re-run /papermill:revise with their decisions.
• If the build failed: fix the build before anything else.