Revision Coordinator

Skill Routing Table

What You Need

1. The manuscript (complete draft or relevant sections)
2. The feedback (any format: bulleted, prose, structured)
3. Supporting materials (if available):
   • Original research question and argument
   • Data/analysis files
   • Prior versions (for tracking changes)

Core Principles

1. Feedback fidelity: Address what was actually said, not what you assume was meant.

2. Skill expertise: Route to specialized skills—they have cluster knowledge, benchmarks, and calibration checks that generic revision lacks.

3. Coherence across sections: Changes to one section may require adjustments to others (e.g., intro changes may break conclusion callbacks).

4. Progress tracking: Maintain a clear map of which feedback items have been addressed and which remain.

5. Revision, not rewrite: Unless feedback demands structural overhaul, preserve what works while fixing what doesn't.

Workflow Phases

Phase 0: Intake & Feedback Mapping

Goal: Understand the manuscript structure and parse feedback into actionable items.

Process:

• Read the full manuscript (or available sections)
• Read the feedback carefully
• Parse feedback into discrete items (one issue per item)
• Categorize each item by type:
  • Structural: Architecture, organization, missing sections
  • Substantive: Argument, evidence, interpretation
  • Methodological: Methods justification, credibility, transparency
  • Stylistic: Word count, repetition, clarity
  • Coherence: Cross-section alignment, promise-delivery match
• Map each item to the section it addresses
• Identify which skills are relevant for each section
• Create the Revision Task List

Output: revision-map.md with parsed feedback and skill assignments.

Pause: User confirms feedback parsing and skill routing.

Phase 1: Diagnostic Assessment

Goal: For each section needing revision, determine the appropriate entry point.

Process:

• For each section mapped to a specialized skill:
  • Identify the relevant cluster/pathway (using skill's Phase 0 logic)
  • Assess current draft against cluster benchmarks
  • Determine issue severity (minor calibration vs. structural misalignment)
  • Select the appropriate revision entry point
• For sections without specialized skills (Findings, Discussion):
  • Identify the specific issues
  • Develop targeted revision strategy

Output: Updated revision-map.md with diagnostic findings and entry points.

Pause: User confirms diagnostic assessment and revision strategy.

Phase 2: Skill Dispatch

Goal: Route each section to the appropriate skill for revision.

Dispatch Protocol for Each Section:

When invoking a sub-skill for revision, provide:

1. The existing section text (what needs revision)
2. The specific feedback items (what needs to change)
3. The identified cluster/pathway (from diagnostic)
4. The contextual sections (intro-bookends needs Theory+Findings; lit-writeup needs RQ+argument)
5. Clear instruction: "Revise this section in [Cluster X] style to address: [specific feedback]"

Tracking: Mark each feedback item as:

• [ ] Pending
• [~] In progress
• [x] Addressed
• [!] Needs user decision

Output: Revised sections + updated tracking in revision-map.md.

Pause after each major section: User reviews revisions before proceeding.

Phase 3: Integration Review

Goal: Ensure revisions are coherent across the manuscript.

Cross-Section Checks:

• Intro → Findings/Discussion: Do intro promises match what's delivered?
• Theory → Findings: Do theoretical concepts appear in findings analysis?
• Methods → Findings: Do methods support the claims made?
• Intro → Conclusion: Are there callbacks? Does the conclusion answer the intro's question?
• Terminology: Is key language consistent throughout?
• Citation: Are sources cited consistently?

Coherence Repairs:

• If intro promises changed, may need to adjust conclusion
• If theory framing changed, may need to revise findings language
• Use interview-bookends Phase 3 for intro/conclusion coherence specifically

Output: Coherence assessment + any final adjustments.

Pause: User confirms cross-section coherence.

Phase 4: Verification & Response

Goal: Confirm all feedback addressed and prepare revision summary.

Process:

• Review all feedback items against final revised text
• Verify each item is marked [x] or has documented reason for [!]
• Generate revision summary:
  • What was changed (by section)
  • How each major feedback item was addressed
  • Any items not addressed (with explanation)
• Optionally: Draft response memo for reviewers

Output: revision-summary.md with complete accounting.

Folder Structure for Revision

project/
├── manuscript/
│   ├── first-draft.md           # Original manuscript
│   ├── feedback.md              # Reviewer/editor feedback
│   └── revised-draft.md         # Output: revised manuscript
├── revision/
│   ├── revision-map.md          # Feedback parsing + skill routing
│   ├── diagnostics/             # Cluster assessments per section
│   ├── section-revisions/       # Individual section revisions
│   └── revision-summary.md      # Final accounting

Feedback Parsing Guidelines

Parse Into Discrete Items

Transform this:

"The intro is too long and repetitive—you have two intros. Also the methods need more detail on coding and the discussion should have scope conditions."

Into:

1. [Intro] Length: Intro too long
2. [Intro] Structure: Two intros detected (repetition)
3. [Methods] Credibility: More detail on coding needed
4. [Discussion] Scope: Add scope conditions

Categorize by Type

Identify Dependencies

Some feedback items depend on others:

• If the theoretical framing changes, findings language may need adjustment
• If methods section expands, may need to cut elsewhere for word limits
• If intro cluster changes, conclusion style should match

Note dependencies in the revision map so sequencing is correct.

Invoking Sub-Skills

Use the Task tool to invoke specialized skills:

Task: Revise Theory Section
subagent_type: general-purpose