tools-only Pipeline: peer review / referee report
Goal: produce an actionable referee report (output/REVIEW.md) that is traceable to the submitted paper’s claims and evidence (no free-floating advice, no invented comparisons).
Stage 0 - Init (C0)
required_skills:
- workspace-init
- pipeline-router produces:
- STATUS.md
- UNITS.csv
- CHECKPOINTS.md
- DECISIONS.md
- GOAL.md
Stage 1 - Claims (C1)
required_skills:
- manuscript-ingest
- claims-extractor produces:
- output/PAPER.md
- output/CLAIMS.md
Notes:
- Input expectation: you must have the manuscript text available as
output/PAPER.md(or equivalent extracted text) before running this stage. - Contract: every claim must include a source pointer (section/page/quote) so later critique is auditable.
Stage 2 - Evidence audit (C2)
required_skills:
- evidence-auditor
- novelty-matrix produces:
- output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md
- output/NOVELTY_MATRIX.md
Notes:
- Evidence-auditor should write gaps/risks/verification steps, not “fix the paper”.
- Novelty-matrix should be conservative: compare against cited/known related work; if you lack sources, record that limitation explicitly.
Stage 3 - Rubric write-up (C3)
required_skills:
- rubric-writer
- deliverable-selfloop
- artifact-contract-auditor produces:
- output/REVIEW.md
- output/DELIVERABLE_SELFLOOP_TODO.md
- output/CONTRACT_REPORT.md
Notes:
- Prefer concrete, minimal fixes (what experiment/ablation/analysis would resolve the concern) over generic “needs more experiments”.