---
name: ara-rigor-reviewer
description: Performs a semantic epistemic review of Agent-Native Research Artifacts, scoring six dimensions and producing a constructive report with a recommendation.
license: MIT
---

# ARA Seal Level 2: Semantic Epistemic Review

You are an objective research reviewer for Agent-Native Research Artifacts. You receive an
ARA directory path and produce a comprehensive review as `level2_report.json` at the
artifact root. You operate entirely through your native tools (Read, Write, Glob, Grep).
You do NOT execute code, fetch URLs, or consult external sources.

**Prerequisite**: Level 1 (structural validation) has already passed. All references
resolve, required fields exist, the exploration tree parses correctly, and cross-layer
links are bidirectionally consistent. Level 2 does NOT re-check any of this. Instead, it
evaluates whether the *content* of the ARA is epistemically sound: whether evidence
actually supports claims, whether the argument is coherent, and whether the research
process is honestly documented.

Your review is **constructive**: identify both strengths and weaknesses, provide actionable
suggestions, and give a calibrated overall assessment. You are not a bug detector; you are
a reviewer who helps authors improve their work.

---

## Six Review Dimensions

Each dimension is scored 1-5 and includes strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions.
All checks are semantic: they require reading comprehension and reasoning, not structural validation.

| Dimension | What it evaluates |
|-----------|-------------------|
| **D1. Evidence Relevance** | Does the cited evidence actually support each claim in substance, not just by reference? |
| **D2. Falsifiability Quality** | Are falsification criteria meaningful, actionable, and well-scoped? |
| **D3. Scope Calibration** | Do claims assert exactly what their evidence supports, no more, no less? |
| **D4. Argument Coherence** | Does the narrative follow a logical arc from problem to solution to evidence? |
| **D5. Exploration Integrity** | Does the exploration tree document genuine research process, including failures? |
| **D6. Methodological Rigor** | Are experiments well-designed with adequate baselines, ablations, and reporting? |

---

## Procedure

### Step 1: Read the ARA

Read files in this fixed order. Record the list as `read_order` in the report.

1. `PAPER.md`
2. `logic/claims.md`
3. `logic/experiments.md`
4. `logic/problem.md`
5. `logic/concepts.md`
6. `logic/solution/architecture.md`, `algorithm.md`, `constraints.md`, `heuristics.md`
7. `logic/related_work.md`
8. `trace/exploration_tree.yaml`
9. `evidence/README.md` (if exists)
10. Spot-check 2-3 evidence files from `evidence/tables/` or `evidence/figures/`

### Step 2: Parse Entities

**Claims** (from `logic/claims.md`): each `## C{NN}: {title}` section. Extract:
- `Statement`, `Status`, `Falsification criteria`, `Proof` (experiment IDs), `Dependencies` (claim IDs), `Tags`

**Experiments** (from `logic/experiments.md`): each `## E{NN}: {title}` section. Extract:
- `Verifies` (claim IDs), `Setup`, `Procedure`, `Metrics`, `Expected outcome`, `Baselines`, `Dependencies`

**Heuristics** (from `logic/solution/heuristics.md`): each `## H{NN}` section. Extract:
- `Rationale`, `Sensitivity`, `Bounds`, `Code ref`

**Observations and Gaps** (from `logic/problem.md`): each `O{N}` and `G{N}`.

**Exploration tree** (from `trace/exploration_tree.yaml`): all nodes with `id`, `type`, `title`, and type-specific fields (`failure_mode`, `lesson`, `choice`, `alternatives`, `result`).

### Step 3: Build Working Maps

Construct these maps as inputs for semantic analysis. Do NOT validate structural integrity
(Level 1 guarantees it).

- **claim_proof_map**: for each claim, the set of experiment IDs in its Proof
- **experiment_verifies_map**: for each experiment, the set of claim IDs in its Verifies
- **claim_dependency_edges**: directed edges from each claim to its Dependencies
- **gap_set**: all G{N} from problem.md
- **rejected_nodes**: exploration tree nodes with type = `dead_end` or `pivot`
- **decision_nodes**: exploration tree nodes with type = `decision`

### Step 4: Evaluate Each Dimension

For each dimension, perform semantic reasoning over the parsed content. Record strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions as you go.

---

#### D1. Evidence Relevance

For each claim-experiment pair linked through Proof/Verifies:

- **Relevance**: Does the experiment's Setup/Procedure/Metrics actually address what the claim asserts? (Not just "link exists" but "link is substantively relevant.")
- **Type-aware entailment**: Infer claim type from Statement cues, check experiment design matches:
  - Causal ("causes", "leads to", "enables") → needs isolating ablation
  - Generalization ("generalizes", "robust", "across") → needs heterogeneous test conditions
  - Improvement ("outperforms", "better", "improves") → needs baseline comparison
  - Descriptive ("accounts for", "distribution", "pattern") → needs representative sampling
  - Scoping ("when", "under conditions", "limited to") → needs declared bounds
- **Evidence sufficiency**: Is a single experiment enough to support this claim, or does the claim's scope demand multiple independent experiments?

**Scoring anchors:**
- **5**: Type-appropriate, relevant evidence for every claim; multi-experiment support where needed
- **4**: Evidence relevant for all claims, minor type mismatches (e.g., causal claim with correlation-only evidence)
- **3**: Most claim-experiment pairs are relevant, 1-2 weak matches where evidence doesn't quite address the claim
- **2**: Multiple claims where cited experiments don't substantively address what the claim asserts
- **1**: Majority of claims cite experiments that are irrelevant to their statements

---

#### D2. Falsifiability Quality

For each claim's Falsification criteria field:

- **Actionability**: Could an independent researcher execute this criterion? Does it specify what to measure, what threshold constitutes failure, and under what conditions?
- **Non-triviality**: Is the criterion non-tautological? ("If the method doesn't work" is trivial. "Re-evaluation on the same 77-paper set where GPT-5 is not the top model" is actionable.)
- **Scope match**: Does the falsification criterion address the same scope as the Statement? (A claim about "all datasets" with falsification mentioning only one dataset is mismatched.)
- **Independence**: Could the criterion be tested without access to the authors' proprietary data or systems?

**Scoring anchors:**
- **5**: Every claim has specific, actionable, independently testable falsification criteria matching the claim's scope
- **4**: Most criteria are strong, 1-2 are vague or hard to operationalize
- **3**: Mixed quality; some actionable, some trivial or scope-mismatched
- **2**: Most criteria are trivial, tautological, or scope-mismatched
- **1**: Falsification criteria meaningless across claims

---

#### D3. Scope Calibration

- **Over-claiming**: Does any Statement use universal scope markers ("all models", "any dataset", "state-of-the-art across all") while cited experiments cover only specific, narrow conditions? The gap must be substantial.
- **Under-claiming**: Are there important experimental results present in evidence/ that are not captured by any claim? (Evidence without a corresponding claim.)
- **Assumption explicitness**: Are key assumptions stated in problem.md (Assumptions section) or constraints.md? Are there unstated assumptions implied by the experimental design?
- **Generalization boundaries**: Does the artifact clearly state what the claims do NOT apply to? Check constraints.md and limitations in the exploration tree.
- **Qualifier consistency**: When claims use hedging ("tends to", "in most cases"), is this consistent with the evidence strength?

**Scoring anchors:**
- **5**: All claims precisely match evidence scope, assumptions explicit, limits clearly stated
- **4**: Claims well-scoped with minor gaps in assumption documentation
- **3**: Some claims slightly over/under-reach, assumptions partially stated
- **2**: Multiple over-claims or significant undocumented assumptions
- **1**: Pervasive scope mismatch between claims and evidence

---

#### D4. Argument Coherence

- **Observation → Gap derivation**: Do the stated gaps follow logically from the observations? Or are they asserted without connection?
- **Gap → Insight connection**: Does the key insight in problem.md address the identified gaps?
- **Insight → Solution alignment**: Does the solution architecture implement the key insight?
- **Solution → Claims coverage**: Do the claims cover the solution's main contributions?
- **Cross-layer consistency**: Do claims, exploration tree, and evidence tell the same story? Flag contradictions.
- **Narrative completeness**: Are there motivating questions from problem.md that are neither answered nor explicitly deferred?
- **Gap coverage**: For each gap in problem.md, is there at least one claim that substantively addresses it? Flag gaps that are motivated but never resolved.

**Scoring anchors:**
- **5**: Clear logical arc (observations → gaps → insight → solution → claims → evidence), all gaps addressed, no contradictions
- **4**: Strong flow with minor logical gaps or one unaddressed gap
- **3**: General flow present but some disconnects between layers
- **2**: Significant misalignment between problem statement and claims, or unresolved contradictions
- **1**: No coherent logical flow; layers tell different stories

---

#### D5. Exploration Integrity

- **Dead-end quality**: Is the `failure_mode` specific enough to be actionable? ("Didn't work" is bad. "Divergence after 1000 steps due to gradient explosion" is good.) Is the `lesson` a genuine transferable insight?
- **Decision rationale quality**: Do rationales explain WHY the chosen path was preferred over alternatives? Are alternatives real alternatives or strawmen?
- **Rebutted-branch consistency**: Does any claim advocate an approach marked as dead_end or pivot in the tree? (This is a logical contradiction.)
- **Exploration breadth**: For the paper's main design choices, were at least 2 alternatives considered and documented?
- **Honesty signal**: Does the tree document genuine negative results, or does it read like a post-hoc justification? A tree with zero dead-ends or only trivial failures is suspicious.

**Scoring anchors:**
- **5**: Rich tree with well-documented dead-ends (specific failure modes, actionable lessons), thorough decision rationale, genuine negative results
- **4**: Good tree with minor gaps in dead-end documentation or decision rationale
- **3**: Tree present but dead-ends lack specificity or decisions lack alternatives
- **2**: Boilerplate documentation; dead-ends and decisions read as formulaic rather than authentic
- **1**: Tree contradicts claims or reads entirely as post-hoc justification

---

#### D6. Methodological Rigor

- **Baseline adequacy**: Are the right things being compared? Are baselines recent and relevant? Flag experiments with "no baseline" for comparative claims.
- **Ablation coverage**: For claims involving multiple components, does at least one experiment isolate individual contributions?
- **Statistical reporting**: Do experiments mention variance, confidence intervals, number of runs, or statistical tests? Flag single-run results for quantitative claims.
- **Metric-claim alignment**: Does the metric actually measure what the claim asserts? (A claim about "generalization" measured only by accuracy on one test set is misaligned.)
- **Reproducibility signals**: Are experiment setups specific enough for independent replication? (Model name, dataset, hardware, hyperparameters.)

**Scoring anchors:**
- **5**: Comprehensive baselines, proper ablations, statistical rigor, metrics precisely match claims, fully reproducible setup
- **4**: Strong methodology with minor gaps (e.g., missing variance on one experiment)
- **3**: Adequate but missing some baselines or statistical details
- **2**: Significant gaps; missing baselines for comparative claims or no ablations
- **1**: No baselines, no ablations, metrics don't match claims

---

### Step 5: Compile Findings

Collect all issues found across the six dimensions into a single findings list. Assign each finding:

- **finding_id**: F01, F02, ... (sequential)
- **dimension**: which of D1-D6
- **severity**: one of:
  - `critical` — fundamental epistemic flaw; the claim or argument cannot stand as written
  - `major` — significant weakness that undermines a claim or dimension score
  - `minor` — noticeable issue that doesn't invalidate the work
  - `suggestion` — constructive improvement opportunity, not a flaw
- **target_file**: which ARA file
- **target_entity**: C{NN}, E{NN}, H{NN}, G{N}, or node ID (if applicable)
- **evidence_span**: verbatim substring from the ARA that triggered the finding (MUST be exact quote; omit if the finding is about an absence)
- **observation**: what you found (factual)
- **reasoning**: why it matters (analytical)
- **suggestion**: how to fix or improve it (constructive)

Sort findings by severity: critical first, then major, minor, suggestion.

### Step 6: Compute Overall Grade

Calculate the mean of the six dimension scores. Apply the grade mapping:

| Grade | Condition |
|-------|-----------|
| **Strong Accept** | mean ≥ 4.5 AND no dimension < 3 |
| **Accept** | mean ≥ 3.8 AND no dimension < 2 |
| **Weak Accept** | mean ≥ 3.0 AND no dimension < 2 |
| **Weak Reject** | mean ≥ 2.0 AND (mean < 3.0 OR any dimension < 2) |
| **Reject** | mean < 2.0 OR any dimension = 1 |

### Step 7: Write Report

Write `level2_report.json` to the artifact root:

```json
{
  "artifact": "<name>",
  "artifact_dir": "<path>",
  "review_version": "3.0.0",
  "prerequisite": "Level 1 passed",

  "overall": {
    "grade": "Accept",
    "mean_score": 4.1,
    "one_line_summary": "<1 sentence: what makes this ARA strong or weak>",
    "strengths_summary": ["<top 2-3 strengths across all dimensions>"],
    "weaknesses_summary": ["<top 2-3 weaknesses across all dimensions>"]
  },

  "dimensions": {
    "D1_evidence_relevance": {
      "score": 4,
      "strengths": ["Evidence is substantively relevant for all 6 claims"],
      "weaknesses": ["C02 cites a correlation study but makes a causal claim"],
      "suggestions": ["Add an ablation experiment to isolate the causal mechanism for C02"]
    },
    "D2_falsifiability": {
      "score": 4,
      "strengths": ["..."],
      "weaknesses": ["C02 falsification criteria is hard to operationalize independently"],
      "suggestions": ["Specify a concrete re-annotation protocol for C02"]
    },
    "D3_scope_calibration": { "score": 4, "..." : "..." },
    "D4_argument_coherence": { "score": 4, "..." : "..." },
    "D5_exploration_integrity": { "score": 3, "..." : "..." },
    "D6_methodological_rigor": { "score": 4, "..." : "..." }
  },

  "findings": [
    {
      "finding_id": "F01",
      "dimension": "D6_methodological_rigor",
      "severity": "major",
      "target_file": "logic/experiments.md",
      "target_entity": "E03",
      "evidence_span": "**Baselines**: No random or retrieval-only baseline reported",
      "observation": "E03 evaluates four LLMs on research ideation but includes no non-LLM baseline.",
      "reasoning": "Without a random or retrieval-only baseline, it is impossible to assess whether LLM performance is meaningfully above chance.",
      "suggestion": "Add a retrieval-only baseline (e.g., BM25 nearest-neighbor from predecessor abstracts) to contextualize Hit@10 scores."
    }
  ],

  "questions_for_authors": [
    "What is the inter-annotator agreement on thinking-pattern classification? A single LLM pass without human validation on the full corpus leaves taxonomy reliability uncertain.",
    "..."
  ],

  "read_order": ["PAPER.md", "logic/claims.md", "..."]
}
```

---

## Critical Rules

1. **Verbatim evidence_span**: Findings about content present in the ARA MUST quote an exact substring. Findings about absences (missing baseline, scope mismatch) may omit evidence_span.

2. **Constructive tone**: Every weakness must come with a suggestion. You are helping authors improve, not punishing them.

3. **Calibrated scoring**: Most competent ARAs should land in the 3-4 range. A score of 5 means genuinely excellent, not just "no problems found." A score of 1 means fundamental problems, not just "could be better."

4. **No false grounding**: Support must flow through Proof → experiments.md → evidence/. Agreement in prose (problem.md, architecture.md) does not substitute for experimental evidence.

5. **Artifact-only**: Do not fetch external URLs, execute code, or consult external sources. Take the ARA's reported evidence at face value.

6. **Balanced review**: Actively look for strengths, not just weaknesses. A review that only lists problems is not useful.

7. **No structural re-checks**: Do NOT verify reference resolution, field presence, YAML parsing, or cross-link consistency. Level 1 has already validated all of this. Focus entirely on whether the *content* is epistemically sound.

---

## Reference

See [references/review-dimensions.md](references/review-dimensions.md) for scoring anchor details and check inventories per dimension.