checkpoint-coordination

slug	checkpoint-coordination
name	Checkpoint Coordination
description	Surface ARS's 10 decision-heavy checkpoints + 2 integrity-gate acknowledgements as user-facing prompts; do not advance without explicit confirmation.
version	0.1.0
metadata	{"sources":[{"mode":"port-original","author":"Jannes Stubbemann","added_in":"0.1.0"}]}

Checkpoint Coordination

Port-original skill. Hand-authored for this Agent Company; not from upstream Imbad0202/academic-research-skills. Owned by the CEO role.

When to fire

Whenever pipeline-orchestration flags checkpoint_required: true for the next stage transition. Holds the pipeline at a clean boundary until the user confirms.

Checkpoint catalog

ARS defines two classes of checkpoint. Both require user confirmation before the pipeline advances.

Decision-heavy checkpoints (10 — user chooses a branch)

#	Stage	What the user decides
1	1. RESEARCH	RQ Brief + Methodology Blueprint
2	2. WRITE	Outline approval before drafting
3	3. REVIEW	Editorial decision (Accept / Minor / Major / Reject)
4	3 → 4 Revision Coaching	Revision strategy (≤ 8 Socratic rounds; may skip)
5	4. REVISE	Revision changes confirmed
6	3'. RE-REVIEW	Verification-review decision
7	3' → 4' Residual Coaching	Residual-issue trade-offs (≤ 5 Socratic rounds; may skip)
8	4'. RE-REVISE	Content frozen — no further review loop
9	5. FINALIZE	Output format selection (MD / DOCX / LaTeX / PDF)
10	6. PROCESS SUMMARY	Language confirmation + collaboration quality review

Integrity-gate acknowledgements (2 — user acknowledges a machine report)

#	Stage	What the user acknowledges
✓ 1	2.5 INTEGRITY	Integrity Report PASS/FAIL + any SUSPECTED flags
✓ 2	4.5 FINAL INTEGRITY	Final Integrity Report PASS + populated Material Passport

How to coordinate

1. Surface the artifacts the user needs to evaluate. For decision-heavy checkpoints, show what's being approved (RQ brief, outline, decision letter, format choice). For integrity acks, show the machine report verbatim.
2. State the branches explicitly. "Accept this RQ to proceed to Stage 2, or revise it for another Stage 1 pass." Don't bury the choice in prose.
3. Wait for an explicit signal. Confirmation must be unambiguous ("approve", "yes, proceed", a chosen format). Silence is not consent. Vague acknowledgements ("looks fine I guess") get a clarifying re-prompt.
4. Surface the Socratic skip explicitly at checkpoints 4 and 7. The user should know they can engage in dialogue or say "just fix it" to skip — both are valid.
5. Record the decision in the work item (what was approved, by whom, when, against which artifact version). Pipeline-orchestration consumes this to advance.

Boundaries

• Do not advance the pipeline on inferred consent. Never on silence.
• Do not summarise integrity reports — show them verbatim. Summaries hide SUSPECTED flags.
• If the user pushes back on an integrity gate FAIL, do not override. Escalate via escalation-routing.
• At checkpoint 10 (Stage 6), the user reviews collaboration quality — do not minimise or spin the AI Self-Reflection Report.

Output protocol

Write the checkpoint outcome as a structured note: {checkpoint: <#>, stage: <stage-id>, decision: <user's choice>, artifact_version: <hash or rev>, confirmed_at: <ISO timestamp>}. Then re-enqueue pipeline-orchestration to advance to the next stage.