Paper Audit Skill (论文审核)
Unified academic paper auditing across formats and languages.
Critical Rules
- NEVER modify
\cite{}, \ref{}, \label{}, math environments in LaTeX
- NEVER modify
@cite, #cite(), #ref(), <label> in Typst
- NEVER fabricate bibliography entries — only verify existing
.bib/.yml files
- NEVER change domain terminology without user confirmation
- Check
FORBIDDEN_TERMS lists before suggesting any terminology changes
- For PDF input, clearly flag sections where extraction quality is uncertain
- Always distinguish between automated findings and LLM-judgment scores
Audit Modes
Mode: self-check (Pre-submission Self-Check)
Trigger keywords: audit, check, self-check, pre-submission, score, review my paper
What it does: Runs all automated checks and generates a structured report with:
- Per-dimension scores (Quality, Clarity, Significance, Originality) on 1-6 scale
- Issue list sorted by severity (Critical > Major > Minor)
- Improvement suggestions per section
- Pre-submission checklist results
CLI: python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode self-check
Online Bibliography Verification
Add --online to enable CrossRef/Semantic Scholar metadata verification:
python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode self-check --online --email user@example.com
ScholarEval 8-Dimension Assessment
Add --scholar-eval to enable the 8-dimension evaluation framework:
python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode self-check --scholar-eval
Script-evaluable dimensions (Soundness, Clarity, Presentation, partial Reproducibility) are scored automatically. For complete assessment, supplement with LLM evaluation of Novelty, Significance, Ethics, and Reproducibility. See SCHOLAR_EVAL_GUIDE.md.
ScholarEval LLM Assessment Prompt (for review mode):
Read the full paper and provide 1-10 scores with evidence in JSON format:
{
"novelty": {
"score": "<1-10>",
"evidence": "<Describe originality and distinction from prior work>"
},
"significance": {
"score": "<1-10>",
"evidence": "<Describe potential impact on the field>"
},
"reproducibility_llm": {
"score": "<1-10>",
"evidence": "<Assess experimental description completeness, code/data availability>"
},
"ethics": {
"score": "<1-10>",
"evidence": "<Assess ethical considerations, conflicts of interest, data privacy>"
}
}
Mode: review (Peer Review Simulation)
Trigger keywords: simulate review, peer review, reviewer perspective, what would reviewers say
What it does: Everything in self-check PLUS:
- Paper summary from reviewer perspective
- Strengths analysis
- Weaknesses analysis with severity
- Questions a reviewer would ask
- Accept/reject recommendation with confidence
CLI: python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode review
Mode: gate (Quality Gate)
Trigger keywords: quality gate, pass/fail, can I submit, ready to submit, advisor check
What it does: Fast mandatory checks only:
- Format validation
- Bibliography integrity
- Figure/table references
- Pre-submission checklist
- Binary PASS/FAIL verdict with blocking issues
CLI: python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode gate
Mode: polish (Adversarial Dual-Agent Deep Polish)
Trigger keywords: polish, deep polish, adversarial review, refine writing,
improve writing, paragraph polish
What it does:
- Phase 1 (Python): Fast rule-based precheck → .polish-state/precheck.json
- Phase 2 (Critic Agent): LLM adversarial review → per-section logic/expression scores
- Phase 3 (Mentor Agent × N): Per-section polish suggestions → Original vs Revised table
- Outputs: Structured polish report with diff-comment suggestions
Style options (--style):
A Plain Precise (default): Short sentences, active voice, technical precision
B Narrative Fluent: Story-driven, transitions, accessible prose
C Formal Academic: Passive voice acceptable, formal register, hedge words
Skip logic: --skip-logic bypasses Critic logic scoring; Mentor runs
expression-only polish. Equivalent to /polish quick command.
CLI: python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode polish --style A --journal neurips
Supported Formats
| Format |
Parser |
Notes |
| LaTeX (.tex) |
LatexParser |
Full support — all checks available |
| Typst (.typ) |
TypstParser |
Full support — all checks available |
| PDF (.pdf) basic |
PdfParser (pymupdf) |
Text extraction with font-size heading detection |
| PDF (.pdf) enhanced |
PdfParser (pymupdf4llm) |
Structured Markdown with table/header preservation |
PDF Limitations: Math formulas may be lost; some checks (format, figures) skip for PDF. Recommend providing source files (.tex/.typ) for maximum accuracy.
Language Support
| Language |
Detection |
Extra Checks |
| English |
Auto (default) |
Standard suite |
| Chinese |
Auto (CJK ratio > 30%) |
+ consistency check, + GB/T 7714 compliance |
Force with --lang en or --lang zh.
Check Modules
| Module |
Script Source |
Dimensions Affected |
Applicable Formats |
| Format Check |
check_format.py |
Clarity |
.tex, .typ |
| Grammar Analysis |
analyze_grammar.py |
Clarity |
.tex, .typ, .pdf |
| Logic & Coherence |
analyze_logic.py |
Quality, Significance |
.tex, .typ, .pdf |
| Sentence Complexity |
analyze_sentences.py |
Clarity |
.tex, .typ, .pdf |
| De-AI Detection |
deai_check.py |
Clarity, Originality |
.tex, .typ, .pdf |
| Bibliography |
verify_bib.py |
Quality |
.tex, .typ |
| Figure/Table Refs & Captions |
check_figures.py |
Clarity |
.tex |
| Reference Integrity |
check_references.py |
Clarity, Quality |
.tex, .typ |
| Visual Layout |
visual_check.py |
Clarity |
.pdf |
| Consistency (ZH) |
check_consistency.py |
Clarity |
.tex (Chinese only) |
| GB/T 7714 (ZH) |
verify_bib.py (GB mode) |
Quality |
.tex (Chinese only) |
| Pre-submission Checklist |
Built-in |
All |
All formats |
Scoring System
Based on REVIEWER_PERSPECTIVE.md criteria:
Four Dimensions
- Quality (30%): Technical soundness, well-supported claims
- Clarity (30%): Clear writing, reproducible, good organization
- Significance (20%): Community impact, advances understanding
- Originality (20%): New insights, not obvious extensions
Six-Point Scale (NeurIPS standard)
| Score |
Rating |
Meaning |
| 5.5-6.0 |
Strong Accept |
Groundbreaking, technically flawless |
| 4.5-5.4 |
Accept |
Technically solid, high impact |
| 3.5-4.4 |
Borderline Accept |
Solid but limited evaluation/novelty |
| 2.5-3.4 |
Borderline Reject |
Merits but weaknesses outweigh |
| 1.5-2.4 |
Reject |
Technical flaws, insufficient evaluation |
| 1.0-1.4 |
Strong Reject |
Fundamental errors or known results |
Output Protocol
All issues follow the unified format:
[MODULE] (Line N) [Severity: Critical|Major|Minor] [Priority: P0|P1|P2]: Issue description
Original: ...
Revised: ...
Rationale: ...
- Severity: Critical (must fix), Major (should fix), Minor (nice to fix)
- Priority: P0 (blocking), P1 (important), P2 (low priority)
Workflow
When a user requests a paper audit:
- Identify the file — locate the .tex, .typ, or .pdf file
- Determine mode — self-check (default), review, or gate based on user intent
- Run the orchestrator —
python scripts/audit.py <file> --mode <mode>
- Present the report — show the Markdown report to the user
- Discuss findings — help the user address Critical and Major issues first
- Re-audit if needed — run again after fixes to verify improvements
For review mode, supplement the automated report with LLM analysis of:
- Overall paper strengths (what works well)
- Key weaknesses (what reviewers would criticize)
- Questions a reviewer would ask
- Missing related work or baselines
Polish Mode Workflow
Run Python precheck
python scripts/audit.py <file> --mode polish [--style A|B|C] [--journal <name>] [--skip-logic]
Read .polish-state/precheck.json from the paper's directory.
Check hard blockers
If precheck.json["blockers"] is non-empty, display them and STOP.
Say: "Fix these Critical issues before polish can proceed:" + list.
Do NOT spawn any agent until user confirms fixes.
Handle non-IMRaD structure (if precheck.json["non_imrad"] == true)
Show detected sections, ask user: "Proceed with polish on these sections?"
Spawn Critic Agent via Task:
Subagent type: general-purpose
Prompt template:
You are an adversarial academic reviewer.
Paper: {file_path} | Language: {lang} | Journal: {journal} | Style: {style}
Step 1: Read the paper using the Read tool (file: {file_path}).
Step 2: The rule-based precheck found these issues: {precheck_issues_summary}
Step 3: Produce a CRITIC REPORT as valid JSON (no markdown fencing):
{
"global_verdict": "ready_to_polish" | "needs_revision_first" | "major_restructure_needed",
"global_rationale": "2-3 sentences",
"section_verdicts": [
{
"section": "<name>",
"logic_score": 1-5,
"expression_score": 1-5,
"blocks_mentor": false,
"blocking_reason": "",
"top_issues": [{"type": "logic|expression|argument", "description": "..."}]
}
],
"cross_section_issues": ["..."]
}
blocks_mentor = true ONLY when logic_score <= 2 or section is structurally absent.
Save the Critic's JSON output to .polish-state/critic_report.json using Bash:
python -c "import pathlib; pathlib.Path('.polish-state/critic_report.json').write_text('<critic_json_here>', encoding='utf-8')"
Display Critic Dashboard and gate
Render the Critic report as a markdown table (see dashboard format).
Show blocked sections. Ask:
"How to proceed?
[1] Polish all sections (override blocks)
[2] Skip blocked sections, polish the rest
[3] Stop and revise blocked sections first"
Wait for response.
Spawn Mentor Agents per section (sequential, one at a time):
For each approved section in IMRaD order:
Subagent type: general-purpose
Prompt template:
You are a writing mentor specializing in academic polish.
CRITICAL RULES (NEVER VIOLATE):
- Never modify \cite{}, \ref{}, \label{}, \eqref{} in LaTeX
- Never modify @cite, #cite(), #ref(), <label> in Typst
- Never modify math environments: $...$, \begin{equation}..., \begin{align}...
- Never add/remove citations
- Mark any domain terminology changes as [TERM CHANGE: confirm?]
Section: {section_name} (lines {start}-{end})
Target style: {style} ({style_description from POLISH_GUIDE.md})
Critic scores — Logic: {logic_score}/5, Expression: {expression_score}/5
Critic top issues: {top_issues}
Pre-check expression issues in this section: {filtered_expression_issues}
Read lines {start}-{end} of {file_path}:
Use Read tool with offset={start-1} and limit={end-start+1}.
Produce MENTOR REPORT in this format:
## Section: {section_name}
### Polish Suggestions
[MENTOR] (Line N) [Severity: Major|Minor] [Priority: P1|P2]: description
Original: <exact original text>
Revised: <revised text preserving all LaTeX/Typst commands>
Rationale: <one sentence>
### Section Summary
<2-3 sentences on overall quality and key improvements>
After each Mentor completes:
- Display its output
- Ask: "Section {name} polish done. Accept and continue to next section?"
- Wait for confirmation before spawning next Mentor.
Final status dashboard (after all sections done):
See dashboard format below.
Polish Status Dashboard Format
Print at end of each phase and at completion:
╭─ 🔴🔵 paper-audit Polish Mode ──────────────────────────╮
│ 📄 File: {filename} | Style: {A/B/C} | Journal: {venue} │
│ ⚔️ Critic: {global_verdict} │
│ │
│ Section │ Logic │ Expr │ Mentor │ Suggestions │
│ abstract │ 4/5 │ 3/5 │ ✅ Done │ 3 │
│ introduction │ 3/5 │ 2/5 │ ✅ Done │ 7 │
│ method │ BLOCK │ 2/5 │ ⏭️ Skipped │ 0 │
│ experiment │ 4/5 │ 4/5 │ ✅ Done │ 2 │
│ conclusion │ 5/5 │ 3/5 │ ✅ Done │ 4 │
│ │
│ 👉 Next: {明确的下一步指示} │
╰───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯
1---2name: paper-audit-23description: Unified paper audit skill supporting Chinese & English academic papers. Supports LaTeX (.tex), Typst (.typ), and PDF (.pdf) input formats. Three modes: self-check (pre-submission), review (peer review simulation), gate (quality gate pass/fail). Use when user mentions: audit, review, check paper, paper quality, pre-submission check, score paper, or any paper auditing task, polish paper, deep polish, adversarial review, refine writing, caption audit, 图表标题审查.4---5
6# Paper Audit Skill (论文审核)
7
8Unified academic paper auditing across formats and languages.
9
10## Critical Rules
11
121. NEVER modify `\cite{}`, `\ref{}`, `\label{}`, math environments in LaTeX
132. NEVER modify `@cite`, `#cite()`, `#ref()`, `<label>` in Typst
143. NEVER fabricate bibliography entries — only verify existing `.bib`/`.yml` files
154. NEVER change domain terminology without user confirmation
165. Check `FORBIDDEN_TERMS` lists before suggesting any terminology changes
176. For PDF input, clearly flag sections where extraction quality is uncertain
187. Always distinguish between automated findings and LLM-judgment scores
19
20## Audit Modes
21
22### Mode: `self-check` (Pre-submission Self-Check)
23
24**Trigger keywords**: audit, check, self-check, pre-submission, score, review my paper
25
26**What it does**: Runs all automated checks and generates a structured report with:
27- Per-dimension scores (Quality, Clarity, Significance, Originality) on 1-6 scale
28- Issue list sorted by severity (Critical > Major > Minor)
29- Improvement suggestions per section
30- Pre-submission checklist results
31
32**CLI**: `python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode self-check`
33
34#### Online Bibliography Verification
35
36Add `--online` to enable CrossRef/Semantic Scholar metadata verification:
37```
38python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode self-check --online --email user@example.com
39```
40
41#### ScholarEval 8-Dimension Assessment
42
43Add `--scholar-eval` to enable the 8-dimension evaluation framework:
44```
45python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode self-check --scholar-eval
46```
47
48Script-evaluable dimensions (Soundness, Clarity, Presentation, partial Reproducibility) are scored automatically. For complete assessment, supplement with LLM evaluation of Novelty, Significance, Ethics, and Reproducibility. See `SCHOLAR_EVAL_GUIDE.md`.
49
50**ScholarEval LLM Assessment Prompt** (for `review` mode):
51
52Read the full paper and provide 1-10 scores with evidence in JSON format:
53
54```json
55{
56 "novelty": {
57 "score": "<1-10>",
58 "evidence": "<Describe originality and distinction from prior work>"
59 },
60 "significance": {
61 "score": "<1-10>",
62 "evidence": "<Describe potential impact on the field>"
63 },
64 "reproducibility_llm": {
65 "score": "<1-10>",
66 "evidence": "<Assess experimental description completeness, code/data availability>"
67 },
68 "ethics": {
69 "score": "<1-10>",
70 "evidence": "<Assess ethical considerations, conflicts of interest, data privacy>"
71 }
72}
73```
74
75### Mode: `review` (Peer Review Simulation)
76
77**Trigger keywords**: simulate review, peer review, reviewer perspective, what would reviewers say
78
79**What it does**: Everything in self-check PLUS:
80- Paper summary from reviewer perspective
81- Strengths analysis
82- Weaknesses analysis with severity
83- Questions a reviewer would ask
84- Accept/reject recommendation with confidence
85
86**CLI**: `python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode review`
87
88### Mode: `gate` (Quality Gate)
89
90**Trigger keywords**: quality gate, pass/fail, can I submit, ready to submit, advisor check
91
92**What it does**: Fast mandatory checks only:
93- Format validation
94- Bibliography integrity
95- Figure/table references
96- Pre-submission checklist
97- Binary PASS/FAIL verdict with blocking issues
98
99**CLI**: `python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode gate`
100
101### Mode: `polish` (Adversarial Dual-Agent Deep Polish)
102
103**Trigger keywords**: polish, deep polish, adversarial review, refine writing,
104 improve writing, paragraph polish
105
106**What it does**:
107- Phase 1 (Python): Fast rule-based precheck → .polish-state/precheck.json
108- Phase 2 (Critic Agent): LLM adversarial review → per-section logic/expression scores
109- Phase 3 (Mentor Agent × N): Per-section polish suggestions → Original vs Revised table
110- Outputs: Structured polish report with diff-comment suggestions
111
112**Style options** (`--style`):
113- `A` Plain Precise (default): Short sentences, active voice, technical precision
114- `B` Narrative Fluent: Story-driven, transitions, accessible prose
115- `C` Formal Academic: Passive voice acceptable, formal register, hedge words
116
117**Skip logic**: `--skip-logic` bypasses Critic logic scoring; Mentor runs
118 expression-only polish. Equivalent to `/polish` quick command.
119
120**CLI**: `python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode polish --style A --journal neurips`
121
122## Supported Formats
123
124| Format | Parser | Notes |
125|--------|--------|-------|
126| LaTeX (.tex) | `LatexParser` | Full support — all checks available |
127| Typst (.typ) | `TypstParser` | Full support — all checks available |
128| PDF (.pdf) basic | `PdfParser` (pymupdf) | Text extraction with font-size heading detection |
129| PDF (.pdf) enhanced | `PdfParser` (pymupdf4llm) | Structured Markdown with table/header preservation |
130
131**PDF Limitations**: Math formulas may be lost; some checks (format, figures) skip for PDF. Recommend providing source files (.tex/.typ) for maximum accuracy.
132
133## Language Support
134
135| Language | Detection | Extra Checks |
136|----------|-----------|-------------|
137| English | Auto (default) | Standard suite |
138| Chinese | Auto (CJK ratio > 30%) | + consistency check, + GB/T 7714 compliance |
139
140Force with `--lang en` or `--lang zh`.
141
142## Check Modules
143
144| Module | Script Source | Dimensions Affected | Applicable Formats |
145|--------|-------------|--------------------|--------------------|
146| Format Check | `check_format.py` | Clarity | .tex, .typ |
147| Grammar Analysis | `analyze_grammar.py` | Clarity | .tex, .typ, .pdf |
148| Logic & Coherence | `analyze_logic.py` | Quality, Significance | .tex, .typ, .pdf |
149| Sentence Complexity | `analyze_sentences.py` | Clarity | .tex, .typ, .pdf |
150| De-AI Detection | `deai_check.py` | Clarity, Originality | .tex, .typ, .pdf |
151| Bibliography | `verify_bib.py` | Quality | .tex, .typ |
152| Figure/Table Refs & Captions | `check_figures.py` | Clarity | .tex |
153| Reference Integrity | `check_references.py` | Clarity, Quality | .tex, .typ |
154| Visual Layout | `visual_check.py` | Clarity | .pdf |
155| Consistency (ZH) | `check_consistency.py` | Clarity | .tex (Chinese only) |
156| GB/T 7714 (ZH) | `verify_bib.py` (GB mode) | Quality | .tex (Chinese only) |
157| Pre-submission Checklist | Built-in | All | All formats |
158
159## Scoring System
160
161Based on REVIEWER_PERSPECTIVE.md criteria:
162
163### Four Dimensions
164- **Quality** (30%): Technical soundness, well-supported claims
165- **Clarity** (30%): Clear writing, reproducible, good organization
166- **Significance** (20%): Community impact, advances understanding
167- **Originality** (20%): New insights, not obvious extensions
168
169### Six-Point Scale (NeurIPS standard)
170| Score | Rating | Meaning |
171|-------|--------|---------|
172| 5.5-6.0 | Strong Accept | Groundbreaking, technically flawless |
173| 4.5-5.4 | Accept | Technically solid, high impact |
174| 3.5-4.4 | Borderline Accept | Solid but limited evaluation/novelty |
175| 2.5-3.4 | Borderline Reject | Merits but weaknesses outweigh |
176| 1.5-2.4 | Reject | Technical flaws, insufficient evaluation |
177| 1.0-1.4 | Strong Reject | Fundamental errors or known results |
178
179## Output Protocol
180
181All issues follow the unified format:
182
183```
184[MODULE] (Line N) [Severity: Critical|Major|Minor] [Priority: P0|P1|P2]: Issue description
185 Original: ...
186 Revised: ...
187 Rationale: ...
188```
189
190- **Severity**: Critical (must fix), Major (should fix), Minor (nice to fix)
191- **Priority**: P0 (blocking), P1 (important), P2 (low priority)
192
193## Workflow
194
195When a user requests a paper audit:
196
1971. **Identify the file** — locate the .tex, .typ, or .pdf file
1982. **Determine mode** — self-check (default), review, or gate based on user intent
1993. **Run the orchestrator** — `python scripts/audit.py <file> --mode <mode>`
2004. **Present the report** — show the Markdown report to the user
2015. **Discuss findings** — help the user address Critical and Major issues first
2026. **Re-audit if needed** — run again after fixes to verify improvements
203
204For `review` mode, supplement the automated report with LLM analysis of:
205- Overall paper strengths (what works well)
206- Key weaknesses (what reviewers would criticize)
207- Questions a reviewer would ask
208- Missing related work or baselines
209
210### Polish Mode Workflow
211
2121. **Run Python precheck**
213 ```
214 python scripts/audit.py <file> --mode polish [--style A|B|C] [--journal <name>] [--skip-logic]
215 ```
216 Read `.polish-state/precheck.json` from the paper's directory.
217
2182. **Check hard blockers**
219 If `precheck.json["blockers"]` is non-empty, display them and STOP.
220 Say: "Fix these Critical issues before polish can proceed:" + list.
221 Do NOT spawn any agent until user confirms fixes.
222
2233. **Handle non-IMRaD structure** (if `precheck.json["non_imrad"] == true`)
224 Show detected sections, ask user: "Proceed with polish on these sections?"
225
2264. **Spawn Critic Agent** via Task:
227
228 Subagent type: `general-purpose`
229 Prompt template:
230 ```
231 You are an adversarial academic reviewer.
232 Paper: {file_path} | Language: {lang} | Journal: {journal} | Style: {style}
233
234 Step 1: Read the paper using the Read tool (file: {file_path}).
235 Step 2: The rule-based precheck found these issues: {precheck_issues_summary}
236 Step 3: Produce a CRITIC REPORT as valid JSON (no markdown fencing):
237 {
238 "global_verdict": "ready_to_polish" | "needs_revision_first" | "major_restructure_needed",
239 "global_rationale": "2-3 sentences",
240 "section_verdicts": [
241 {
242 "section": "<name>",
243 "logic_score": 1-5,
244 "expression_score": 1-5,
245 "blocks_mentor": false,
246 "blocking_reason": "",
247 "top_issues": [{"type": "logic|expression|argument", "description": "..."}]
248 }
249 ],
250 "cross_section_issues": ["..."]
251 }
252 blocks_mentor = true ONLY when logic_score <= 2 or section is structurally absent.
253 ```
254 Save the Critic's JSON output to `.polish-state/critic_report.json` using Bash:
255 ```
256 python -c "import pathlib; pathlib.Path('.polish-state/critic_report.json').write_text('<critic_json_here>', encoding='utf-8')"
257 ```
258
2595. **Display Critic Dashboard and gate**
260 Render the Critic report as a markdown table (see dashboard format).
261 Show blocked sections. Ask:
262 "How to proceed?
263 [1] Polish all sections (override blocks)
264 [2] Skip blocked sections, polish the rest
265 [3] Stop and revise blocked sections first"
266 Wait for response.
267
2686. **Spawn Mentor Agents per section** (sequential, one at a time):
269 For each approved section in IMRaD order:
270
271 Subagent type: `general-purpose`
272 Prompt template:
273 ```
274 You are a writing mentor specializing in academic polish.
275
276 CRITICAL RULES (NEVER VIOLATE):
277 - Never modify \cite{}, \ref{}, \label{}, \eqref{} in LaTeX
278 - Never modify @cite, #cite(), #ref(), <label> in Typst
279 - Never modify math environments: $...$, \begin{equation}..., \begin{align}...
280 - Never add/remove citations
281 - Mark any domain terminology changes as [TERM CHANGE: confirm?]
282
283 Section: {section_name} (lines {start}-{end})
284 Target style: {style} ({style_description from POLISH_GUIDE.md})
285 Critic scores — Logic: {logic_score}/5, Expression: {expression_score}/5
286 Critic top issues: {top_issues}
287 Pre-check expression issues in this section: {filtered_expression_issues}
288
289 Read lines {start}-{end} of {file_path}:
290 Use Read tool with offset={start-1} and limit={end-start+1}.
291
292 Produce MENTOR REPORT in this format:
293
294 ## Section: {section_name}
295
296 ### Polish Suggestions
297 [MENTOR] (Line N) [Severity: Major|Minor] [Priority: P1|P2]: description
298 Original: <exact original text>
299 Revised: <revised text preserving all LaTeX/Typst commands>
300 Rationale: <one sentence>
301
302 ### Section Summary
303 <2-3 sentences on overall quality and key improvements>
304 ```
305
306 After each Mentor completes:
307 - Display its output
308 - Ask: "Section {name} polish done. Accept and continue to next section?"
309 - Wait for confirmation before spawning next Mentor.
310
3117. **Final status dashboard** (after all sections done):
312 See dashboard format below.
313
314### Polish Status Dashboard Format
315
316Print at end of each phase and at completion:
317
318```
319╭─ 🔴🔵 paper-audit Polish Mode ──────────────────────────╮
320│ 📄 File: {filename} | Style: {A/B/C} | Journal: {venue} │
321│ ⚔️ Critic: {global_verdict} │
322│ │
323│ Section │ Logic │ Expr │ Mentor │ Suggestions │
324│ abstract │ 4/5 │ 3/5 │ ✅ Done │ 3 │
325│ introduction │ 3/5 │ 2/5 │ ✅ Done │ 7 │
326│ method │ BLOCK │ 2/5 │ ⏭️ Skipped │ 0 │
327│ experiment │ 4/5 │ 4/5 │ ✅ Done │ 2 │
328│ conclusion │ 5/5 │ 3/5 │ ✅ Done │ 4 │
329│ │
330│ 👉 Next: {明确的下一步指示} │
331╰───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯
332```