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.