backup materials and knowledge-base docs

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/skills/nature-response/references/intake-and-routing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+# Intake and routing
+
+Use this file before splitting comments or drafting prose. Its job is to decide what task the
+user is asking for, whether the supplied information is enough, and what output state is honest.
+
+## Task modes
+
+| Mode | Use when | Minimum useful input | Default output |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| `draft` | User wants a new point-by-point response package | Reviewer comments plus any author actions or manuscript-change notes | Full response package with placeholders where needed |
+| `audit` | User provides an existing response draft and asks whether it is good enough | Response draft; reviewer comments when available | Findings first, then revised or annotated response sections |
+| `revise` | User wants a draft rewritten for tone, traceability, or Nature-style response | Existing draft plus target change request | Revised response text plus changed-risk notes |
+| `triage-only` | User wants strategy, action list, or missing inputs before writing prose | Reviewer comments or editor letter | Tracker, action map, missing-input list, no final letter |
+| `appeal-like` | User wants to challenge rejection or process rather than revise | Decision letter and disputed points | Route out of default workflow and explain separate appeal handling |
+
+If the mode is unclear, infer the safest useful mode. Prefer `triage-only` when drafting would
+require many unsupported facts.
+
+## Readiness states
+
+Use one readiness state for each comment and one package-level state:
+
+| State | Meaning | Allowed output |
+|---|---|---|
+| `ready_to_submit` | Direct answer, supplied action, and traceable manuscript location are all present | Final response wording without unresolved placeholders |
+| `draft_with_placeholders` | A useful draft can be written, but visible placeholders remain | Draft wording with bracketed placeholders and risk flags |
+| `needs_author_input` | Final text would require facts the user has not supplied | Tracker, questions, partial draft only if placeholders are explicit |
+| `blocked` | Ethics, compliance, data integrity, missing central evidence, or appeal-like routing prevents credible revision response | Blocking issue first; do not produce confident final wording |
+
+Do not call a package `ready_to_submit` if any comment remains `draft_with_placeholders`,
+`needs_author_input`, or `blocked`.
+
+## Editor instruction handling
+
+When editor instructions are supplied:
+
+- Assign editor-level IDs before reviewer IDs: `E.1`, `E.2`, `E.3`.
+- Address editor instructions before Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, etc.
+- If editor instructions conflict with reviewer suggestions, surface the conflict in the strategy summary.
+- Treat explicit editor constraints as higher priority than reviewer-level preference.
+
+Example:
+
+```text
+E.1: Focus on clarifying the central claim without substantial manuscript expansion.
+R1.1: Make the causal claim stronger.
+R2.1: Soften unsupported causal language.
+```
+
+The response strategy should explain that the editor's constraint and the observational design
+support claim softening rather than stronger causal language.
+
+## Minimum information by output type
+
+### Full draft response
+
+Requires:
+
+- reviewer comments or editor comments;
+- enough author notes to know which actions were taken;
+- manuscript locations or placeholders for claimed changes.
+
+If locations are missing, use section names or bracketed placeholders. Do not invent line numbers.
+
+### Final submission-ready response
+
+Requires:
+
+- all reviewer and editor comments identified;
+- all claimed actions supplied by the author;
+- traceable locations for every manuscript change;
+- real details for experiments, analyses, statistics, citations, figures, tables, supplements, ethics, and data availability.
+
+If any required fact is missing, the output is not `ready_to_submit`.
+
+### Audit
+
+Requires:
+
+- user draft;
+- reviewer comments when available.
+
+If reviewer comments are absent, audit only the visible draft and flag that completeness cannot be verified.
+
+## Clarifying question rules
+
+Usually proceed with placeholders and risk flags. Ask concise questions only when:
+
+- the user explicitly asks for final submission-ready text and required facts are missing;
+- the draft would otherwise fabricate data, locations, approvals, statistics, citations, or figure panels;
+- reviewer boundaries are too ambiguous to assign stable IDs;
+- the case appears appeal-like or outside normal revision response.
+
+When asking, keep questions specific:
+
+```text
+I need three facts before final wording: the validation result summary, the Methods/Results location,
+and whether Fig. 5 is a main or supplementary figure.
+```
+
+## Routing shortcuts
+
+- Vague author note such as "we fixed it" -> `needs_author_input`.
+- Existing response with hostile language -> `audit` or `revise`.
+- Reviewer asks for impossible new work -> normal revision mode with `PARTIAL` or `OUT_OF_SCOPE`, not appeal.
+- Rejection challenge -> `appeal-like`.
+- User asks only "what should we do?" -> `triage-only`.