Academic Review

• After each round, user sees critique report + improved text
• User decides whether to: continue to next round, accept current version, or abort
• Maximum 3 rounds to prevent infinite loops

When to Trigger

• User types /review
• User says "审查", "润色", "polish"
• User asks to improve academic writing quality
• After completing a section draft

When NOT to Trigger

• Early brainstorming phase: Use /planner or paper-outline-generator instead
• Already reviewed text: Do not re-review text that has already passed 3 review rounds
• Non-academic text: If input is clearly code, logs, or non-academic content, ask user to confirm before proceeding
• Structural redesign needed: If text has severe organizational issues, recommend /planner first

Input Validation

Before running the review loop:

1. Check if input appears to be academic text (sections, paragraphs, citations)
2. If input is ambiguous, ask: "This appears to be [type]. Continue with academic review, or provide the section to review?"
3. If text is very short (<50 words), note that limited feedback is possible

Critic Agent Instructions

The Critic Agent evaluates text and produces a structured critique:

Checklist

1. Precision - Are claims stated precisely?

   • Flag: vague language ("significant", "many", "good", "various")
   • Flag: undefined technical terms without context

2. Support - Are claims backed by evidence?

   • Flag: assertions without citation
   • Flag: logical leaps without justification

3. Logic Flow - Do ideas connect logically?

   • Flag: abrupt transitions
   • Flag: missing logical connectors
   • Flag: structural issues (e.g., results before method)

4. Completeness - Is anything critical missing?

   • Flag: undefined abbreviations
   • Flag: missing necessary context
   • Flag: incomplete arguments

5. Academic Register - Is tone consistent and appropriate?

   • Flag: colloquialisms or informal language
   • Flag: inconsistent hedging
   • Flag: over-claiming or under-claiming

Output Format (Critic)

{
  "critique": [
    {
      "issue": "Vague quantification",
      "location": "Paragraph 2, sentence 3",
      "text": "\"showed significant improvement\"",
      "problem": "What makes it significant? Undefined without context or metrics."
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Main weaknesses identified: (1) vague quantification, (2) missing citations..."
}

Improver Agent Instructions

The Improver Agent refines text based on critique:

Guidelines

• Address ALL identified issues
• Replace vague language with specific alternatives
• Add citations where claims lack support
• Strengthen transitions
• Maintain author's voice
• Flag any changes that alter meaning

Output Format (Improver)

{
  "improvements": [
    {
      "original": "showed significant improvement",
      "revised": "improved by 23.5% (p<0.01, n=100)",
      "reason": "Quantified improvement and added statistical evidence"
    }
  ],
  "revised_text": "Full revised text here..."
}

Iteration Control

1. Round 1: Initial critique + improvement
2. Round 2: New critique of improved text + additional refinement
3. Round 3: Final critique + last refinement

Stopping Conditions (measurable):

• Issue reduction > 50%: If Critic identifies 50%+ fewer issues in Round 2 vs Round 1, and Round 3 shows further reduction, stop
• Stable text reached: If improved text differs from previous by <5 words (word-level diff), stop
• Max rounds reached: After Round 3, stop regardless of issue count
• User decision: User can stop at any round by accepting current version

Escalation Path: If Critic identifies structural/methodological issues beyond surface text polish (e.g., logical flaws, missing sections, unsupported claims that need new research), flag these as "ESCALATION" and recommend:

• /planner to redesign the section structure
• The original author to address the gap before continuing review

Final Output

## Academic Review Complete

**Rounds**: 2/3
**Issues Found**: 5
**Issues Resolved**: 5

### Key Changes
1. Added quantitative metrics to vague claims
2. Added 3 missing citations
3. Strengthened transition between paragraphs 3-4
4. Replaced 2 colloquial phrases with academic alternatives

### Escalated Issues (requires author attention)
- [List structural/methodological issues that need more than polish]

### Revised Text
[Full revised text with changes highlighted]

---
## Original vs Final (summary)
[Side-by-side comparison for major changes]

Usage Examples

• /review my introduction draft
• /review 帮我审查一下methodology部分
• /review and polish the abstract