first commit

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/tests/conflicting-reviewers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Test: conflicting reviewers
+
+## Input
+
+```text
+Editor decision: Major revision.
+
+Editor:
+Please avoid expanding the manuscript substantially; focus on clarifying the central claim and
+addressing the reviewers' concerns with existing data where possible.
+
+Reviewer 1:
+1. The abstract should make a stronger causal claim that X drives Y.
+
+Reviewer 2:
+1. The causal language is not supported by the current observational design and should be softened.
+
+Author notes:
+- The study is observational.
+- We can soften the abstract and discussion.
+- We can add a sentence explaining that the findings support an association, not causality.
+```
+
+## Expected behavior
+
+- Assign editor instruction ID `E.1` and address it before reviewer comments.
+- Assign reviewer IDs `R1.1` and `R2.1`.
+- Detect a conflict between Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2.
+- Prioritize the editor instruction and the evidentiary limit of the observational design.
+- Use `SOFTEN_CLAIM` for `R2.1`.
+- Use `PARTIAL` or `DISAGREE` for the stronger causal-claim request in `R1.1`, with respectful reasoning.
+- Avoid incompatible promises.
+- Mark readiness as `draft_with_placeholders` unless exact revised abstract/discussion wording or locations are supplied.
+
+## Forbidden behavior
+
+- Do not promise both stronger causal language and softened causal language.
+- Do not ignore the editor instruction.
+- Do not claim causality from an observational design.
+- Do not accuse either reviewer of being wrong.
+- Do not invent revised abstract or discussion line numbers.
+
+## Pass/fail checklist
+
+- [ ] `E.1` appears in the tracker or strategy summary.
+- [ ] The conflict is surfaced explicitly.
+- [ ] The chosen response is consistent with the observational design.
+- [ ] `R1.1` and `R2.1` are both answered.
+- [ ] No incompatible manuscript-change promises appear.

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/tests/defensive-draft-audit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Test: defensive draft audit
+
+## Input
+
+```text
+Mode requested: audit and revise this draft response.
+
+Reviewer 1:
+1. The method description is unclear and does not explain how model calibration was performed.
+2. The authors should report the software version.
+
+Author draft:
+The reviewer clearly misunderstood our method. We already explained the calibration in the paper.
+We have revised accordingly. The software version is now included.
+
+Author notes:
+- Calibration is described in Methods, but the exact paragraph may not be clear.
+- Software version: v2.3.1.
+- No line numbers are available yet.
+```
+
+## Expected behavior
+
+- Detect task mode as `audit` or `revise`.
+- Assign stable IDs `R1.1` and `R1.2`.
+- Flag the author draft as defensive and insufficiently traceable.
+- Rewrite the misunderstanding sentence as manuscript-clarity framing.
+- Treat `R1.1` as `CLARIFY_EXISTING` plus possible `ACCEPT_TEXT`.
+- Treat `R1.2` as `ACCEPT_TEXT` with supplied version `v2.3.1`.
+- Use section names rather than invented line numbers.
+- Mark package readiness as `draft_with_placeholders` or `needs_author_input` until exact Methods location or revised text is supplied.
+
+## Forbidden behavior
+
+- Do not retain "The reviewer clearly misunderstood our method."
+- Do not retain bare "We have revised accordingly."
+- Do not invent line numbers or a Methods paragraph.
+- Do not claim the calibration explanation was already sufficient without clarifying the manuscript.
+- Do not remove the supplied software version.
+
+## Pass/fail checklist
+
+- [ ] Defensive language is removed.
+- [ ] Each reviewer comment receives its own ID.
+- [ ] Revised response includes manuscript-clarity framing.
+- [ ] `v2.3.1` is preserved exactly.
+- [ ] Missing location details remain visible.

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/tests/evaluation-summary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Evaluation summary
+
+`nature-response` is evaluated with synthetic Markdown fixtures. These tests are not executable
+unit tests; they are behavior contracts for manual and agent review.
+
+## Status rationale
+
+Recommended status: `Beta`.
+
+Rationale:
+
+- The core rules are defined in `SKILL.md` and modular references.
+- The skill has synthetic fixtures covering minor revision, major revision with missing evidence,
+  impossible experiment, defensive draft audit, and conflicting reviewers.
+- Each fixture includes expected behavior, forbidden behavior, and pass/fail criteria.
+- The examples show expected output shape without using real confidential reviewer comments.
+- The skill has not yet been validated on real anonymized revision packages, so `Stable` would be premature.
+
+## Fixture coverage
+
+| Fixture | Coverage | Key failure prevented |
+|---|---|---|
+| `minor-revision.md` | stable IDs, minor comments, missing citation metadata | fabricated citation or line numbers |
+| `major-revision-missing-evidence.md` | validation request, statistical details, missing evidence | invented results or p-values |
+| `impossible-experiment.md` | out-of-scope longitudinal evidence | time/funding excuse or fabricated survival data |
+| `defensive-draft-audit.md` | hostile draft language, vague compliance | accusatory reviewer language |
+| `conflicting-reviewers.md` | editor priority and incompatible reviewer requests | contradictory manuscript promises |
+
+## Manual evaluation checklist
+
+- [x] Every fixture has input, expected behavior, forbidden behavior, and pass/fail checklist.
+- [x] No fixture uses real reviewer comments.
+- [x] Examples are synthetic and do not contain confidential review content.
+- [x] Status remains below `Stable` until real anonymized cases are reviewed.
+
+## Promotion path to Stable
+
+Promote from `Beta` to `Stable` only after:
+
+- at least two real anonymized revision packages are tested with author permission;
+- no fabricated actions, line numbers, statistics, or citations are observed;
+- Chinese-note workflows produce usable English response drafts and Chinese confirmation notes;
+- edge cases such as conflicting reviewers and impossible experiments remain traceable.

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/tests/impossible-experiment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Test: impossible experiment
+
+## Input
+
+```text
+Editor decision: Major revision.
+
+Reviewer 2:
+1. Please add 2-year survival outcomes to support the clinical relevance of the biomarker.
+
+Author notes:
+- The study is cross-sectional.
+- We do not have longitudinal follow-up.
+- We can soften the claim and add a limitation in the Discussion.
+- We can point to the existing association analysis in Figure 3.
+```
+
+## Expected behavior
+
+- Assign stable ID `R2.1`.
+- Classify the request as evidence / interpretation plus scope / feasibility.
+- Use `PARTIAL` or `OUT_OF_SCOPE` with a high-risk flag, not simple refusal.
+- Acknowledge the scientific value of longitudinal survival data.
+- Explain that 2-year survival requires longitudinal follow-up beyond the present cross-sectional design.
+- Offer the supplied alternative evidence: existing association analysis in `Figure 3`.
+- Add a limitation / softened claim action in the Discussion.
+
+## Forbidden behavior
+
+- Do not cite time, money, convenience, or lack of funding as the primary reason.
+- Do not say the experiment is impossible without explaining the study-design boundary.
+- Do not imply survival data were collected.
+- Do not accuse the reviewer of asking for an unreasonable experiment.
+- Do not leave the central claim unchanged if the requested evidence is absent.
+
+## Pass/fail checklist
+
+- [ ] The response acknowledges the value of the requested survival evidence.
+- [ ] The scope boundary is scientific and design-based.
+- [ ] The response includes alternative evidence from `Figure 3`.
+- [ ] The manuscript checklist includes claim softening or limitation text.
+- [ ] No fabricated survival results appear.

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/tests/major-revision-missing-evidence.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# Test: major revision with missing evidence
+
+## Input
+
+```text
+Editor decision: Major revision.
+
+Reviewer 1:
+1. The manuscript requires validation in an independent cohort.
+2. The statistical replicate definition is unclear.
+
+Author notes:
+- We added validation using dataset GSEXXXX and placed it in new Fig. 5.
+- We fixed the statistics description.
+- Please write the reply in Nature style.
+```
+
+## Expected behavior
+
+- Assign stable IDs: `R1.1`, `R1.2`.
+- Classify `R1.1` as major evidence / validation with `ACCEPT_ANALYSIS` or `ACCEPT_EXPERIMENT`, depending on whether dataset validation is presented as analysis or experiment.
+- Mention dataset `GSEXXXX` and `Fig. 5` because the author supplied them.
+- Flag missing result details for `R1.1`, such as outcome direction, performance/effect summary, sample count if relevant, and manuscript section or line location.
+- Classify `R1.2` as statistical / methodological and flag missing exact details.
+- Request the statistical test name, replicate unit, sample size or replicate count, correction method when relevant, and Methods location.
+
+## Forbidden behavior
+
+- Do not invent validation results, performance numbers, p-values, confidence intervals, sample sizes, or effect sizes.
+- Do not claim "the revised Methods now states" unless revised text or location is supplied.
+- Do not treat "We fixed the statistics description" as enough evidence for a final confident response.
+- Do not downgrade a major validation request to minor wording.
+
+## Pass/fail checklist
+
+- [ ] Major risks are surfaced in the strategy summary.
+- [ ] `GSEXXXX` and `Fig. 5` are preserved exactly.
+- [ ] Missing evidence is marked as `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`.
+- [ ] Statistical details are requested explicitly.
+- [ ] No fabricated quantitative results or manuscript locations appear.

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/tests/minor-revision.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Test: minor revision
+
+## Input
+
+```text
+Editor decision: Minor revision.
+
+Reviewer 1:
+1. Please define X in the Introduction.
+2. Figure 2 legend is unclear.
+
+Reviewer 2:
+1. Please cite recent work on Y.
+
+Author notes:
+- X means cross-domain calibration.
+- We revised the Introduction definition.
+- We clarified the Figure 2 legend.
+- We know one relevant citation but have not provided DOI or full bibliographic details yet.
+```
+
+## Expected behavior
+
+- Assign stable IDs: `R1.1`, `R1.2`, `R2.1`.
+- Classify `R1.1` and `R1.2` as minor editorial / presentation comments.
+- Classify `R2.1` as citation / positioning with missing citation metadata.
+- Draft concise English responses for `R1.1` and `R1.2`.
+- Mark `R2.1` as `ADD_CITATION` with `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED` until the citation is verified.
+- Use section names when line numbers are absent.
+
+## Forbidden behavior
+
+- Do not invent a citation, DOI, journal, year, or title for work on Y.
+- Do not claim exact line numbers.
+- Do not answer any comment only with thanks.
+- Do not merge the two Reviewer 1 comments into one untraceable response.
+
+## Pass/fail checklist
+
+- [ ] Every reviewer comment receives an ID.
+- [ ] Every ID appears in the tracker and the draft letter.
+- [ ] Citation metadata is requested or placeholder-flagged.
+- [ ] Responses are concise and non-defensive.
+- [ ] No fabricated line numbers or citation details appear.

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/tests/rubric.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+# nature-response test rubric
+
+Use this rubric to manually evaluate `nature-response` outputs against the Markdown fixtures.
+
+## Completeness
+
+Pass when:
+
+- Every reviewer comment receives a stable ID.
+- Every ID appears in the tracker and response letter.
+- Repeated concerns are cross-referenced rather than ignored.
+- Ambiguous reviewer boundaries are flagged.
+
+Fail when:
+
+- A comment is skipped.
+- Two concerns are merged without traceability.
+- A major concern receives only a polite acknowledgement.
+
+## Traceability
+
+Pass when:
+
+- Every claimed manuscript change has a section, page, line, figure, table, supplement, or explicit placeholder.
+- New analyses, experiments, figures, citations, and limitations are mapped to action labels.
+- Missing locations are flagged rather than invented.
+
+Fail when:
+
+- The response claims a change without location or evidence.
+- The response invents line numbers, figure panels, supplementary items, or citation metadata.
+
+## Factuality
+
+Pass when:
+
+- Missing evidence is marked `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`.
+- Quantitative details are used only when supplied by the author.
+- Reviewer wording is preserved unless the user asks for anonymization or summarization.
+
+Fail when:
+
+- The response invents data, p-values, confidence intervals, sample sizes, accession details, reviewer identities, or editor instructions.
+- The response overstates unsupported causal or clinical claims.
+
+## Tone
+
+Pass when:
+
+- The response is cooperative, concise, and evidence-forward.
+- Disagreement is respectful and scientifically justified.
+- Reviewer misunderstanding is framed as manuscript clarification when appropriate.
+
+Fail when:
+
+- The response accuses the reviewer of error, incompetence, or misunderstanding.
+- The response is excessively apologetic, defensive, or repetitive.
+- The response uses time, money, or convenience as the primary reason for not doing requested work.
+
+## Actionability
+
+Pass when:
+
+- The author can see what to change in the manuscript.
+- Missing information is listed as concrete author questions.
+- Blocking or high-risk issues are visible before the draft letter.
+
+Fail when:
+
+- The output only produces prose and no action checklist.
+- The author cannot identify what evidence is still needed.
+
+## Nature-fit
+
+Pass when:
+
+- The output is organized as editor-readable point-by-point response material.
+- All referee criticisms are seriously addressed, justified, or flagged.
+- The response letter could be audited if it became part of transparent peer review.
+
+Fail when:
+
+- The output reads like generic language polishing.
+- The response hides limitations or makes compliance appear stronger than the evidence provided.