first commit

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.