Aw Discuss 2

Step 1 — Read Both Documents

Read the following files from the current working directory:

• .planning/literature.md — Literature Summary from Research Agent
• .planning/methodology.md — Methodology Design from Methodology Agent

If either file is missing, abort with:

错误: 未找到必要文件。
- .planning/literature.md: [存在/不存在]
- .planning/methodology.md: [存在/不存在]

请确保 Research Agent 和 Methodology Agent 都已完成。

Step 2 — Extract Key Information

From .planning/literature.md, extract:

From .planning/methodology.md, extract:

Step 3 — Run Four Consistency Checks

Check 1: 研究空白对齐 (Gap Alignment)

What to check:

• Does the Literature's stated research gap match the Methodology's problem statement?
• Does the Methodology address a gap that Literature confirms exists?

Inconsistency triggers:

• Methodology addresses "Gap X" but Literature shows Gap X is already solved by prior work
• Methodology claims a gap but Literature provides no evidence the gap exists
• Literature shows the problem is unsolved but Methodology does not actually address that specific problem

Example of PASS: Literature identifies "no existing method handles X under Y conditions." Methodology proposes a method that specifically handles X under Y conditions.

Example of FAIL: Literature shows "Method Z already achieves 95% on this exact problem." Methodology proposes improving on that problem without acknowledging Method Z.

Check 2: Baseline 覆盖 (Baseline Coverage)

What to check:

• Do all baselines listed in Methodology's Baselines table appear in Literature's references or Related Work?
• Are the baselines credible/famous enough to be legitimate comparisons?

Warning triggers:

• Baseline appears in Methodology but is not found in Literature → WARNING (may need to add citation)
• Baseline appears in Literature only as a passing mention without details → WARNING

Inconsistency triggers:

• Baseline is a well-known method but Literature shows no record of it → INCONSISTENT (cannot compare to something not reviewed)
• Baseline is a paper the user would need to cite but has not been analyzed → WARNING

Example of PASS: Methodology lists ResNet, ViT, and CLIP as baselines. Literature includes all three with full analysis.

Example of WARNING: Methodology lists "Method X" as a baseline, but Literature only mentions it briefly in passing without analyzing its approach or results.

Check 3: 数据集可行性 (Dataset Reality)

What to check:

• Do the datasets in Methodology's Datasets table exist and are they publicly available?
• Are the dataset sizes and splits realistic?

Inconsistency triggers:

• Methodology uses "Dataset Y" but no such dataset exists (confirmed via web search)
• Dataset is proprietary/private with no public access path
• Dataset is misnamed (e.g., "ImageNet" vs correct "ImageNet-1K")

Warning triggers:

• Dataset exists but access requires special approval/agreement not mentioned
• Dataset is extremely small or extremely large compared to similar work
• Dataset split ratios differ from standard practice in the field

Example of PASS: Methodology uses CIFAR-10, Cityscapes. Literature confirms these are standard benchmarks in the field.

Example of FAIL: Methodology claims to use "BenchmarkV3" but no such dataset exists publicly.

Check 4: 方法验证 (Approach Validation)

What to check:

• Does Literature show that similar approaches (to what Methodology proposes) have been attempted before?
• Is the approach plausibly grounded in prior work, or is it completely unprecedented?

This is typically a NOTE, not a failure, because novel approaches are expected in research. However, extreme cases warrant warning.

Note triggers:

• Similar approach has been tried in related fields → NOTE (this is normal and healthy)
• Approach is unprecedented but theoretically motivated → NOTE

Warning triggers:

• Methodology proposes a complete paradigm shift with no theoretical or empirical foundation in Literature
• Methodology ignores an entire class of proven methods and proposes something completely disconnected

Example of NOTE: Literature uses CNNs for task X. Methodology proposes a Transformer variant of CNN. This is a reasonable extension — not a problem.

Example of WARNING: Literature exclusively shows that graph-based approaches fail on this task domain. Methodology proposes an entirely graph-based solution with no bridging evidence.

Step 4 — Output Consistency Report

Display the report in this exact format:

## 一致性检查报告

**检查时间:** [ISO timestamp]
**文献调研:** .planning/literature.md
**方法设计:** .planning/methodology.md

---

### Check 1: 研究空白对齐
**状态:** ✅ 通过 / ⚠️ 警告 / ❌ 不一致
**详情:** [findings — 2-3 sentences max]

---

### Check 2: Baseline 覆盖
**状态:** ✅ 通过 / ⚠️ 警告 / ❌ 不一致
**详情:** [findings — list any missing or under-represented baselines]

---

### Check 3: 数据集可行性
**状态:** ✅ 通过 / ⚠️ 警告 / ❌ 不一致
**详情:** [findings — list any questionable datasets]

---

### Check 4: 方法验证
**状态:** ✅ 通过 / ⚠️ 警告 / ❌ 不一致
**详情:** [findings — note if approach is novel but grounded, or unprecedented]

---

**总体状态:** 全部通过 / 发现问题需处理

Step 5 — Route Based on Overall Status

If All Checks Pass (总体状态: 全部通过):

一致性检查全部通过。

文献调研发现了 [N] 篇相关工作，方法设计与文献发现一致。

- Gap Alignment:    ✅ Gap 在文献中得到确认
- Baseline 覆盖:   ✅ [X] 个 baselines 均在文献中有记录
- 数据集可行性:    ✅ 所有数据集真实可用
- 方法验证:        ✅ 方法设计有文献依据

下一步：Planning Agent 制定写作计划。

Ask user to confirm: