Skill: eric-promax/academic-pipeline (version 1.0.0)

--- name: academic-pipeline description: "Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: literature search -> research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> humanize -> finalize. Coordinates academic-search, deep-research, academic-paper, academic-paper-reviewer, and humanizer into a seamless 12-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, de-AI processing, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow." metadata: version: "3.5" last_updated: "2026-05-13" depends_on: "ima-skills, academic-search, deep-research, academic-paper, academic-paper-reviewer, humanizer, humanizer-zh" status: active related_skills: - ima-skills - academic-search - deep-research - academic-paper - academic-paper-reviewer - humanizer - humanizer-zh --- # Academic Pipeline v3.5 — Full Academic Research Workflow Orchestrator A lightweight orchestrator that manages the complete academic pipeline from research exploration to final manuscript. It does not perform substantive work — it only detects stages, recommends modes, dispatches skills, manages transitions, and tracks state. **v2.0 Core Improvements**: 1. **Mandatory user confirmation checkpoints** — Each stage completion requires user confirmation before proceeding to the next step 2. **Academic integrity verification** — After paper completion and before review submission, 100% reference and data verification must pass 3. **Two-stage review** — First full review + post-revision focused verification review 4. **Final integrity check** — After revision completion, re-verify all citations and data are 100% correct 5. **Reproducible** — Standardized workflow producing consistent quality assurance each time 6. **Process documentation** — After pipeline completion, automatically generates a "Paper Creation Process Record" PDF documenting the human-AI collaboration history ## Quick Start **Full workflow (from scratch):** ``` I want to write a research paper on the impact of AI on higher education quality assurance ``` --> academic-pipeline launches, starting from Stage 2 (RESEARCH) **Mid-entry (existing paper):** ``` I already have a paper, help me review it ``` --> academic-pipeline detects mid-entry, starting from Stage 4 (INTEGRITY) **Revision mode (received reviewer feedback):** ``` I received reviewer comments, help me revise ``` --> academic-pipeline detects, starting from Stage 7 (REVISE) **Execution flow:** 1. Detect the user's current stage and available materials 2. Recommend the optimal mode for each stage 3. Dispatch the corresponding skill for each stage 4. **After each stage completion, proactively prompt and wait for user confirmation** 5. Track progress throughout; Pipeline Status Dashboard available at any time --- ## Trigger Conditions ### Trigger Keywords **English**: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow ### Non-Trigger Scenarios | Scenario | Skill to Use | |----------|-------------| | Only need to search materials or do a literature review | `deep-research` | | Only need to write a paper (no research phase needed) | `academic-paper` | | Only need to review a paper | `academic-paper-reviewer` | | Only need to check citation format | `academic-paper` (citation-check mode) | | Only need to convert paper format | `academic-paper` (format-convert mode) | ### Trigger Exclusions - If the user only needs a single function (just search materials, just check citations), no pipeline is needed — directly trigger the corresponding skill - If the user is already using a specific mode of a skill, do not force them into the pipeline - The pipeline is optional, not mandatory --- ## Pipeline Stages (12 Stages) | Stage | Name | Skill / Agent Called | Available Modes | Deliverables | |-------|------|---------------------|----------------|-------------| | **1** | **LITERATURE SEARCH** | **`academic-search`** | **multi-source, single-source, two-pass, query-expansion** | **Bibliography (BibTeX) + metadata (JSON) + CCF/venue level + optional PDFs** | | 2 | RESEARCH | `deep-research` | socratic, full, quick | RQ Brief, Methodology, Bibliography, Synthesis | | 3 | WRITE | `academic-paper` | plan, full | Paper Draft | | **4** | **INTEGRITY** | **`integrity_verification_agent`** | **pre-review** | **Integrity verification report + corrected paper** | | 5 | REVIEW | `academic-paper-reviewer` | full (incl. Devil's Advocate) | 5 review reports + Editorial Decision + Revision Roadmap | | **6** | **RE-REVIEW** | **`academic-paper-reviewer`** | **re-review** | **Verification review report: revision response checklist + residual issues** | | 7 | REVISE | `academic-paper` | revision | Revised Draft, Response to Reviewers | | **8** | **RE-REVISE** | **`academic-paper`** | **revision** | **Second revised draft (if needed)** | | **9** | **FINAL INTEGRITY** | **`integrity_verification_agent`** | **final-check** | **Final verification report (must achieve 100% pass to proceed)** | | **10** | **HUMANIZE** | **`humanizer` + `humanizer-zh`** | **full (双语互补)** | **De-AI 化论文全文 + 双语变更摘要** | | 11 | FINALIZE | `academic-paper` | format-convert | Final Paper (default MD + DOCX; ask about LaTeX; confirm correctness; PDF) | | **12** | **PROCESS SUMMARY** | **orchestrator** | **auto** | **Paper creation process record MD + LaTeX to PDF (bilingual)** | **Parallelization opportunity (v3.3)**: Within Stage 3, the `academic-paper` skill's Phase 1 (literature_strategist_agent) and the `visualization_agent` can operate in parallel after Phase 2 (structure_architect_agent) completes the outline. Specifically: - Once the outline includes a visualization plan, `visualization_agent` can begin figure generation - Simultaneously, `argument_builder_agent` can build CER chains - `draft_writer_agent` waits for both to complete before beginning Phase 4 This mirrors PaperOrchestra's parallel execution of Plot Generation (Step 2) and Literature Review (Step 3) after Outline (Step 1), which reduces overall pipeline latency. The parallelization is optional — sequential execution remains the default for simplicity. --- ## Pipeline State Machine 1. **Stage 1 LITERATURE SEARCH** -> user confirmation -> Stage 2 2. **Stage 2 RESEARCH** -> user confirmation -> Stage 3 3. **Stage 3 WRITE** -> user confirmation -> Stage 4 4. **Stage 4 INTEGRITY** -> PASS -> Stage 5 (FAIL -> fix and re-verify, max 3 rounds) 5. **Stage 5 REVIEW** -> Accept -> Stage 9 / Minor|Major -> Stage 7 / Reject -> Stage 3 or end 6. **Stage 7 REVISE** -> user confirmation -> Stage 6 7. **Stage 6 RE-REVIEW** -> Accept|Minor -> Stage 9 / Major -> Stage 8 8. **Stage 8 RE-REVISE** -> user confirmation -> Stage 9 (no return to review) 9. **Stage 9 FINAL INTEGRITY** -> PASS (zero issues) -> Stage 10 (FAIL -> fix and re-verify) 10. **Stage 10 HUMANIZE** -> user confirmation -> Stage 11 11. **Stage 11 FINALIZE** -> MD + DOCX -> ask about LaTeX -> confirm -> PDF -> Stage 12 12. **Stage 12 PROCESS SUMMARY** -> ask language version -> generate process record MD -> LaTeX -> PDF -> end See `references/pipeline_state_machine.md` for complete state transition definitions. --- ## Adaptive Checkpoint System ⚠️ **IRON RULE — Core rule: After each stage completion, the system must proactively prompt the user and wait for confirmation. The checkpoint presentation adapts based on context and user engagement.** ### Checkpoint Types | Type | When Used | Content | |------|-----------|---------| | FULL | First checkpoint; after integrity boundaries; before finalization | Full deliverables list + decision dashboard + all options | | SLIM | After 2+ consecutive "continue" responses on non-critical stages | One-line status + auto-continue in 5 seconds | | MANDATORY | Integrity FAIL; Review decision; Stage 11 | Cannot be skipped; requires explicit user input | ### Decision Dashboard (shown at FULL checkpoints) ``` ━━━ Stage [X] [Name] Complete ━━━ Metrics: - Word count: [N] (target: [T] +/-10%) [OK/OVER/UNDER] - References: [N] (min: [M]) [OK/LOW] - Coverage: [N]/[T] sections drafted [COMPLETE/PARTIAL] - Quality indicators: [score if available] Deliverables: - [Material 1] - [Material 2] Flagged: [any issues detected, or "None"] Ready to proceed to Stage [Y]? You can also: 1. View progress (say "status") 2. Adjust settings 3. Pause pipeline ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ``` ### Adaptive Rules 1. **First checkpoint**: always FULL 2. **After 2+ consecutive "continue" without review**: prompt user awareness ("You've auto-continued [N] times. Want to review progress?") 3. **Integrity boundaries (Stage 4, 9)**: always MANDATORY 4. **Review decisions (Stage 5, 6')**: always MANDATORY 5. **Before finalization (Stage 11)**: always MANDATORY 6. **All other stages**: start FULL, downgrade to SLIM if user says "just continue" ### Checkpoint Rules 1. ⚠️ **IRON RULE**: **Cannot auto-skip MANDATORY checkpoints**: Even if the previous stage result is perfect, explicit user input is required at MANDATORY checkpoints 2. **User can adjust**: At FULL and MANDATORY checkpoints, users can modify the mode or settings for the next step 3. **Pause-friendly**: Users can pause at any checkpoint and resume later 4. **SLIM mode**: If the user says "just continue" or "fully automatic," subsequent non-critical checkpoints switch to SLIM format (one-line status + auto-continue), but notifications are still sent 5. **Awareness guard**: After 4+ consecutive auto-continues, the system inserts a FULL checkpoint regardless of stage type to ensure user remains engaged ### Self-Check Questions (at every FULL checkpoint) Before presenting the checkpoint to the user, the orchestrator asks itself: 1. **Citation integrity**: Are there any unverified citations in the latest output? 2. **Sycophantic concession**: Did the latest stage uncritically accept all feedback without pushback? 3. **Quality trajectory**: Is the latest output ≥ the quality of the previous stage? If declining, PAUSE and flag. 4. **Scope discipline**: Did the latest stage add content not requested by the user or the revision roadmap? 5. **Completeness**: Are all required deliverables for this stage present? If ANY answer raises concern, include it in the checkpoint presentation to the user. --- ## Agent Team (3 Agents) | # | Agent | Role | File | |---|-------|------|------| | 1 | `pipeline_orchestrator_agent` | Main orchestrator: detects stage, recommends mode, triggers skill, manages transitions | `agents/pipeline_orchestrator_agent.md` | | 2 | `state_tracker_agent` | State tracker: records completed stages, produced materials, revision loop count | `agents/state_tracker_agent.md` | | 3 | `integrity_verification_agent` | Integrity verifier: 100% reference/citation/data verification | `agents/integrity_verification_agent.md` | --- ## Orchestrator Workflow ### Step 1: INTAKE & DETECTION ``` pipeline_orchestrator_agent analyzes the user's input: 1. What materials does the user have? - No materials --> Stage 2 (RESEARCH) - Has research data --> Stage 3 (WRITE) - Has paper draft --> Stage 4 (INTEGRITY) - Has verified paper --> Stage 5 (REVIEW) - Has review comments --> Stage 7 (REVISE) - Has revised draft --> Stage 6 (RE-REVIEW) - Has final draft for formatting --> Stage 11 (FINALIZE) 2. What is the user's goal? - Full workflow (research to publication) - Partial workflow (only certain stages needed) 3. Determine entry point, confirm with user ``` ### Step 2: MODE RECOMMENDATION ``` Based on entry point and user preferences, recommend modes for each stage: User type determination: - Novice / wants guidance --> socratic (Stage 2) + plan (Stage 3) + guided (Stage 5) - Experienced / wants direct output --> full (Stage 2) + full (Stage 3) + full (Stage 5) - Time-limited --> quick (Stage 2) + full (Stage 3) + quick (Stage 5) Explain the differences between modes when recommending, letting the user choose ``` ### Step 3: STAGE EXECUTION ``` Call the corresponding skill (does not do work itself, purely dispatching): 1. Inform the user which Stage is about to begin 2. Load the corresponding skill's SKILL.md 3. Launch the skill with the recommended mode 4. Monitor stage completion status After completion: 1. Compile deliverables list 2. Update pipeline state (call state_tracker_agent) 3. [MANDATORY] Proactively prompt checkpoint, wait for user confirmation ``` ### Step 4: TRANSITION ``` After user confirmation: 1. Pass the previous stage's deliverables as input to the next stage 2. Trigger handoff protocol (defined in each skill's SKILL.md): - Stage 2 --> 2: deep-research handoff (RQ Brief + Bibliography + Synthesis) - Stage 3 --> 4: Pass complete paper to integrity_verification_agent - Stage 4 --> 3: Pass verified paper to reviewer - Stage 5 --> 4: Pass Revision Roadmap to academic-paper revision mode - Stage 7 --> 6: Pass revised draft and Response to Reviewers to reviewer - Stage 6 --> 8: Pass new Revision Roadmap + R&R Traceability Matrix (Schema 11) to academic-paper revision mode - Stage 7/8 --> 9: Pass revision-completed paper to integrity_verification_agent (final verification) - Stage 9 --> 5: Pass verified final draft to format-convert mode 3. Begin next stage ``` ### Mid-Conversation Reinforcement Protocol At every stage transition, the orchestrator MUST inject a brief core principles reminder. This prevents context rot in long conversations. **Template** (adapt to the upcoming stage): ```` --- STAGE TRANSITION: [Current] → [Next] --- 🔄 Core Principles Reinforcement: 1. [Most relevant IRON RULE for the next stage] 2. [Most relevant Anti-Pattern to avoid in the next stage] 3. Quality check: Is the output of [Current Stage] at least as good as [Previous Stage]? If not, PAUSE. Checkpoint: [MANDATORY/ADVISORY] — [What user needs to confirm] --- ```` **Stage-specific reinforcement content**: See `references/reinforcement_content.md` for the full transition → reinforcement focus table. --- ## Integrity Review Protocol Stage 4 (pre-review) and Stage 9 (post-revision) verification. 5-phase protocol: references → citation context → statistical data → originality → claims. ⚠️ **IRON RULE**: Stage 9 must PASS with zero issues to proceed to Stage 11. Stage 9 verifies from scratch independently. ⚠️ **IRON RULE (v3.2)**: Both Stage 4 and Stage 9 must also run the **AI Research Failure Mode Checklist** — a 7-mode taxonomy extending the citation hallucination checks into implementation bugs, hallucinated results, shortcut reliance, bug-as-insight, methodology fabrication, and pipeline-level frame-lock. If any of the 7 modes is `SUSPECTED`, or if Modes 1/3/5/6 are `INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE`, the pipeline **blocks** and the user must acknowledge (confirm / override with reasoning / revise) before the pipeline proceeds. There is no `--no-block` escape hatch. Stage 12 PROCESS SUMMARY then reports the full failure-mode audit log as part of the AI Self-Reflection Report. > See `references/integrity_review_protocol.md` for the 5-phase citation/claim verification procedures. > See `references/ai_research_failure_modes.md` for the 7-mode AI research failure checklist and block/override logic. --- ## Two-Stage Review Protocol Stage 5 (full review, 5 reviewers) → Revision Coaching → Stage 7 → Stage 6 (re-review) → optional Residual Coaching → Stage 8. > See `references/two_stage_review_protocol.md` for detailed stage flows and coaching dialogue limits. --- ## Mid-Entry Protocol Users can enter from any stage. The orchestrator will: 1. **Detect materials**: Analyze the content provided by the user to determine what is available 2. **Identify gaps**: Check what prerequisite materials are needed for the target stage 3. **Suggest backfilling**: If critical materials are missing, suggest whether to return to earlier stages 4. **Direct entry**: If materials are sufficient, directly start the specified stage **Important: mid-entry cannot skip Stage 4** - If the user brings a paper and enters directly, go through Stage 4 (INTEGRITY) first before Stage 5 (REVIEW) - Only exception: User can provide a previous integrity verification report and content has not been modified --- ## External Review Protocol Handles external (human) reviewer feedback integration. 4-step workflow: Intake & Structuring → Strategic Revision Coaching → Revision & Response → Self-Verification. > See `references/external_review_protocol.md` for the complete 4-step workflow, coaching dialogue patterns, and capability boundaries. --- ## Progress Dashboard ASCII dashboard shown at FULL checkpoints to display pipeline progress. > See `references/progress_dashboard_template.md` for the dashboard template. --- ## Revision Loop Management - Stage 5 (first review) -> Stage 7 (revision) -> Stage 6 (verification review) -> Stage 8 (re-revision, if needed) -> Stage 9 (final verification) - **Maximum 1 round of RE-REVISE** (Stage 8): If Stage 6 gives Major, enter Stage 8 for revision then proceed directly to Stage 9 (no return to review) - **Pipeline overrides academic-paper's max 2 revision rule**: In the pipeline, revisions are limited to Stage 7 + Stage 8 (one round each), replacing academic-paper's max 2 rounds rule - Mark unresolved issues as Acknowledged Limitations - Provide cumulative revision history (each round's decision, items addressed, unresolved items) ### Early-Stopping Criterion (v3.2) At the end of each revision round, if **delta < 3 points** on the 0-100 rubric AND **no P0 issues remain**, suggest stopping the revision loop ("converged"). User can override. Hard cap: 2 full revision loops (Stage 7 + Stage 8). ### Budget Transparency (v3.2) At pipeline start, estimate token cost based on paper length, mode, and cross-model toggle. Present estimate and ask for user confirmation before Stage 2 begins. --- ## Reproducibility Every pipeline artifact is versioned, hashed, and auditable. > See `references/reproducibility_audit.md` for standardized workflow guarantees, audit trail format, and artifact tracking. --- ## Stage 12: Process Summary Protocol Produces the final process record: paper creation journey, collaboration quality evaluation (6 dimensions, 1-100), and AI self-reflection report. > See `references/process_summary_protocol.md` for full workflow, required content structure, scoring dimensions, and output specifications. --- ## Anti-Patterns Explicit prohibitions to prevent common failure modes: | # | Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Correct Behavior | |---|-------------|-------------|-----------------| | 1 | **Skipping integrity checks** | "The paper looks fine, skip Stage 4, 9" | Integrity checks are MANDATORY; they cannot be auto-skipped regardless of perceived quality | | 2 | **Orchestrator doing substantive work** | Pipeline orchestrator writes content or reviews the paper | Orchestrator only dispatches and coordinates; substantive work belongs to the sub-skills | | 3 | **Auto-advancing past MANDATORY checkpoints** | Moving to next stage without user confirmation at FULL checkpoints | MANDATORY checkpoints require explicit user input before proceeding | | 4 | **Quality degradation across stages** | Stage 7 revision is worse than Stage 3 draft because context window is exhausted | If Stage N output quality < Stage N-1, PAUSE and reload core principles before continuing | | 5 | **Silently dropping reviewer concerns** | Revision addresses 8 of 10 concerns and hopes nobody notices | The R&R tracking table must account for every concern with explicit status | | 6 | **Re-verifying only known issues at Stage 9** | Final integrity check only re-checks Stage 4 findings | Stage 9 must verify from scratch independently; revision may introduce new issues | | 7 | **Inflating Collaboration Quality scores** | Giving 90/100 to avoid awkward self-criticism | Honesty first: no inflation, no pleasantries; cite specific evidence for every score | | 8 | **Bypassing the Failure Mode Checklist block** (v3.2) | "The 7-mode checklist is new, let's skip it this run" | Stage 4, 9 Failure Mode Checklist is MANDATORY and BLOCKING; no `--no-block` flag exists; overrides require user reasoning recorded for Stage 12 | --- ## Quality Standards | Dimension | Requirement | |-----------|------------| | Stage detection | Correctly identify user's current stage and available materials | | Mode recommendation | Recommend appropriate mode based on user preferences and material status | | Material handoff | Stage-to-stage handoff materials are complete and correctly formatted | | State tracking | Pipeline state updated in real time; Progress Dashboard accurate | | **Mandatory checkpoint** | **User confirmation required after each stage completion** | | **Mandatory integrity check** | **Stage 4 and 9 cannot be skipped, must PASS** | | **Mandatory failure mode checklist** (v3.2) | **Stage 4 and 9 must run the 7-mode AI research failure checklist; suspected failures block; overrides require user reasoning** | | No overstepping | ⚠️ IRON RULE: Orchestrator does not perform substantive research/writing/reviewing, only dispatching | | No forcing | ⚠️ IRON RULE: User can pause or exit pipeline at any time (but cannot skip integrity checks) | | Reproducible | Same input follows the same workflow across different sessions | | **Convergence-aware stopping** (v3.2) | **If delta < 3 points AND no P0 issues, suggest stopping revision loop; user can override** | | **Budget transparency** (v3.2) | **Token cost estimate + user confirmation at pipeline start** | --- ## Error Recovery | Stage | Error | Handling | |-------|-------|---------| | Intake | Cannot determine entry point | Ask user what materials they have and their goal | | Stage 2 | deep-research not converging | Suggest mode switch (socratic -> full) or narrow scope | | Stage 3 | Missing research foundation | Suggest returning to Stage 2 to supplement research | | Stage 4 | Still FAIL after 3 correction rounds | List unverifiable items; user decides whether to continue | | Stage 5 | Review result is Reject | Provide options: major restructuring (Stage 3) or abandon | | Stage 7 | Revision incomplete on all items | List unaddressed items; ask whether to continue | | Stage 6 | Verification still has major issues | Enter Stage 8 for final revision | | Stage 8 | Issues remain after revision | Mark as Acknowledged Limitations; proceed to Stage 9 | | Stage 9 | Final verification FAIL | Fix and re-verify (max 3 rounds) | | Any | User leaves midway | Save pipeline state; can resume from breakpoint next time | | Any | Skill execution failure | Report error; suggest retry or skip | --- ## Agent File References | Agent | Definition File | |-------|----------------| | pipeline_orchestrator_agent | `agents/pipeline_orchestrator_agent.md` | | state_tracker_agent | `agents/state_tracker_agent.md` | | integrity_verification_agent | `agents/integrity_verification_agent.md` | --- ## Reference Files | Reference | Purpose | |-----------|---------| | `references/pipeline_state_machine.md` | Complete state machine definition: all legal transitions, preconditions, actions | | `references/plagiarism_detection_protocol.md` | Phase D originality verification protocol + self-plagiarism + AI text characteristics | | `references/mode_advisor.md` | Unified cross-skill decision tree: maps user intent to optimal skill + mode | | `references/claim_verification_protocol.md` | Phase E claim verification protocol: claim extraction, source tracing, cross-referencing, verdict taxonomy | | `references/ai_research_failure_modes.md` | 7-mode AI research failure checklist (Lu 2026), run at Stage 4 + 9 with blocking behaviour, reported at Stage 12 | | `references/team_collaboration_protocol.md` | Multi-person team coordination: role definitions, handoff protocol, version control, conflict resolution | | `references/integrity_review_protocol.md` | Stage 4 + 9 integrity verification: 5-phase protocol details | | `references/two_stage_review_protocol.md` | Two-stage review: Stage 5 full review + Stage 6 verification review | | `references/external_review_protocol.md` | External (human) reviewer feedback: 4-step intake/coaching/revision/verification | | `references/process_summary_protocol.md` | Stage 12: collaboration quality evaluation + AI self-reflection report | | `references/reproducibility_audit.md` | Standardized workflow guarantees + audit trail format | | `references/progress_dashboard_template.md` | ASCII progress dashboard template | | `references/reinforcement_content.md` | Stage-specific reinforcement focus table for transitions | | `references/changelog.md` | Full version history | | `shared/handoff_schemas.md` | Cross-skill data contracts: 9 schemas for all inter-stage handoff artifacts | --- ## Templates | Template | Purpose | |----------|---------| | `templates/pipeline_status_template.md` | Progress Dashboard output template | --- ## Examples | Example | Demonstrates | |---------|-------------| | `examples/full_pipeline_example.md` | Complete pipeline conversation log (Stage 2-5, with integrity + 2-stage review) | | `examples/mid_entry_example.md` | Mid-entry example starting from Stage 4 (existing paper -> integrity check -> review -> revision -> finalization) | --- ## Output Language Follows user language. Academic terminology retained in English. --- ## Integration with Other Skills ``` academic-pipeline dispatches the following skills (does not do work itself): Stage 2: deep-research - socratic mode: Guided research exploration - full mode: Complete research report - quick mode: Quick research summary Stage 3: academic-paper - plan mode: Socratic chapter-by-chapter guidance - full mode: Complete paper writing Stage 4: integrity_verification_agent (Mode 1: pre-review) Stage 9: integrity_verification_agent (Mode 2: final-check) Stage 5: academic-paper-reviewer - full mode: Complete 5-person review (EIC + R1/R2/R3 + Devil's Advocate) Stage 6: academic-paper-reviewer - re-review mode: Verification review (focused on revision responses) Stage 7/8: academic-paper (revision mode) Stage 11: academic-paper (format-convert mode) - Step 1: Ask user which academic formatting style (APA 7.0 / Chicago / IEEE, etc.) - Step 2: Auto-produce MD + DOCX - Step 3: Produce LaTeX (using corresponding document class, e.g., apa7 class for APA 7.0) - Step 4: After user confirms content is correct, tectonic compiles PDF (final version) - Fonts: Times New Roman (English) + Source Han Serif TC VF (Chinese) + Courier New (monospace) - ⚠️ IRON RULE: PDF must be compiled from LaTeX (HTML-to-PDF is prohibited) ``` --- ## Related Skills | Skill | Relationship | |-------|-------------| | `deep-research` | Dispatched (Stage 2 research phase) | | `academic-paper` | Dispatched (Stage 3 writing, Stage 7/8 revision, Stage 11 formatting) | | `academic-paper-reviewer` | Dispatched (Stage 5 first review, Stage 6 verification review) | --- ## Version Info | Item | Content | |------|---------| | Skill Version | 3.2 | | Last Updated | 2026-04-09 | | Maintainer | Cheng-I Wu | | Dependent Skills | deep-research v2.0+, academic-paper v2.0+, academic-paper-reviewer v1.1+ | | Role | Full academic research workflow orchestrator | --- ## Changelog > See `references/changelog.md` for full version history.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: suspicious | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (CRITICAL)