backup materials and knowledge-base docs

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/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.