Research Revision Preflight

Default Workflow

1. Read the local workspace guidance if one exists.
2. Read the two core files above.
3. Classify the draft's problems into:
   • contribution
   • execution
   • presentation
4. Load only the extra playbooks needed for that diagnosis.
5. Produce a prioritized review, revision plan, rewritten discussion text, or response-letter draft.

Standard Input Template

If the request is underspecified, normalize it using:

• ./references/standard-input-template.md

Infer missing fields when reasonable, but state the assumptions if they materially affect the review or revision diagnosis.

Typical Outputs

• A desk-reject risk memo
• A preflight checklist pass
• A discussion rewrite
• A revision plan grouped by issue severity
• A response letter or reviewer-response skeleton
• A diagnosis of which comments are fatal, core-but-fixable, or surface-level

Operating Heuristics

• Address contribution problems before polishing wording.
• Distinguish fatal issues from fixable execution issues.
• Treat the discussion as a place to recover the original theoretical motivation.
• When responding to reviewers, explain judgment plus revision action, not just the edit.
• Stay calibrated to what the data and design can actually support.

Avoid

• Starting with line edits when the real problem is the paper's positioning
• Writing apologetic response letters instead of analytical ones
• Repeating results in the discussion without showing why they matter
• Treating every reviewer comment as equally important
• Assuming a rejected paper only needs cosmetic revision