Apply revisions from a review report to a manuscript. Reads the review, presents a prioritized revision plan, and applies fixes section-by-section with user approval. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants to systematically address issues from a review — not to draft a new paper or run a fresh review. Triggers include: "revise the paper", "apply the review", "fix the issues from the review", "address referee comments", "apply revisions", "work through the review report", "fix what the reviewer found", "address the major concerns", or any request to systematically apply fixes from an existing review report.
Systematically apply revisions from a review report to a manuscript. Follows Prose Track rules — never auto-edits without approval.
Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to a review report, or leave blank to auto-detect.
If $ARGUMENTS is provided, use that path. Otherwise glob for:
quality_reports/paper_review_*.mdquality_reports/*_substance_review.mdquality_reports/*_proofread.mdIf multiple reports found, use AskUserQuestion:
Read the review report and extract the manuscript path from its File: field.
If the file doesn't exist at that path, glob for:
manuscripts/**/*.texmanuscripts/**/*.qmdIf multiple manuscripts found, use AskUserQuestion to let the user pick.
Read the full manuscript.
Extract all actionable items and classify them:
| Priority | Source Section | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Major Concerns with "CRITICAL" or "BLOCKING" | Must fix before any submission |
| Major | Major Concerns, Referee Objections | Should fix — a reviewer would flag these |
| Minor | Minor Concerns, Specific Comments | Polish — fix if time allows |
For each item, extract:
Present the revision plan grouped by priority:
## Revision Plan
### Critical (N items) — must fix
1. [MC1: Title] — Section X — [brief description of fix]
2. ...
### Major (N items) — should fix
1. [MC2: Title] — Section Y — [brief description of fix]
2. ...
### Minor (N items) — polish
1. [mc1: Title] — Section Z — [brief description of fix]
2. ...
Total: N revisions across M sections.
Do NOT start editing until the user approves the plan or selects which items to address.
Work through approved items in this order:
For each revision:
Prose Track rules apply: If the user deferred any items, skip them and note them in the summary.
After all approved revisions are applied, dispatch the proofreader agent via Task to catch any issues introduced by the edits:
Task prompt: "Review the manuscript at [path] for grammar, typos, layout issues,
and consistency. Focus on sections that were recently revised: [list changed sections].
Return your report — the calling skill handles saving."
Present any new issues found by the proofreader.
Save to quality_reports/revision_summary_[paper-name].md:
# Revision Summary: [Paper Name]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Review report used:** [path]
**Manuscript:** [path]
## Revisions Applied
| # | Priority | Issue | Section | Status |
|---|----------|-------|---------|--------|
| 1 | Critical | [title] | Section X | APPLIED |
| 2 | Major | [title] | Section Y | APPLIED |
| 3 | Minor | [title] | Section Z | DEFERRED — user chose to skip |
## Issues Deferred
- [Item]: [reason deferred]
## Post-Revision Proofreader Findings
- [Any new issues introduced by edits]
## Recommended Next Steps
- **`/quality-gate`** — verify claim consistency after edits
- **`/validate-bib`** — check citations if references were added or changed
- **`/review-paper`** — run a fresh review to confirm issues are resolved