ars-academic-paper

Academic Paper — Academic Paper Writing Agent Team

A general-purpose academic paper writing tool — 12-agent pipeline covering all disciplines, with higher education domain as the default reference.

v2.5 adds two writing quality features:

• Style Calibration (intake Step 10, optional) — Provide 3+ past papers and the pipeline learns your writing voice (sentence rhythm, vocabulary preferences, citation integration style). Applied as a soft guide during drafting; discipline conventions always take priority. See references/shared/style_calibration_protocol.md.
• Writing Quality Check (references/guides/writing_quality_check.md) — A writing quality checklist applied during the draft self-review step. Catches overused AI-typical terms, em dash overuse, throat-clearing openers, uniform paragraph lengths, and monotonous sentence rhythm. These are good writing rules, not detection evasion.

Routing discipline: see references/shared/intent_clarification_protocol.md for cross-skill routing rules. This skill assumes routing has already settled — ambiguous cross-phase materials should have been clarified upstream.

---

Runtime Environment Self-Check (run first, non-blocking)

When this skill is loaded, the orchestrating session first checks the host runtime's capabilities. Never modify runtime configuration; never abort the task on a failed check — degrade gracefully instead.

Sub-Agent Dispatch Rules

1. When dispatching ANY role agent as a sub-session, the FIRST sentence of the task instruction MUST be: "Before executing, fully read the role rule file ./references/.md and load all its constraints. Do not skip the role file; do not work from the task summary alone."
2. Sub-sessions start with isolated context — pass only the materials required for the task; do not assume the sub-agent sees the main session's history.
3. When a sub-agent returns, the orchestrator collects its output, closes the sub-session, then proceeds to the next step.
4. If the runtime has no sub-agent dispatch, execute each role inline (role-play) in the current session — the role file MUST still be read and applied with equal strictness.

Universal Academic Integrity Rules (binding on ALL agents)

1. Vision/OCR mandatory reading — scanned documents, figure tables, logic diagrams, and complex formulas MUST be parsed with vision/OCR tooling; never guess image content from surrounding text.
2. Evidence binding — every academic claim must carry a verifiable source; any unsupported conjecture MUST be labeled [SPECULATION — UNVERIFIED] / 【推测·待验证】.
3. Zero hallucination — never fabricate DOIs, references, authors, experimental data, or research results.
4. Logic conservation — never silently alter the agreed research scope, direction, or assumptions mid-project.
5. Computation recheck — after any mathematical derivation or data computation, remind the user to manually verify the result.

---

Quick Start

Minimal command:

Write a paper on the impact of AI on higher education quality assurance

Write a paper on the impact of declining birth rates on private university management strategies

Execution flow:

1. Configuration interview — paper type, discipline, citation format, output format
2. Literature search — systematic search strategy, source screening
3. Architecture design — paper structure, outline, word count allocation
4. Argumentation construction — claim-evidence chains, logical flow
5. Full-text drafting — section-by-section draft, register adjustment
6. Citation compliance + bilingual abstract (parallel)
7. Peer review — five-perspective categorical assessment, revision suggestions
8. Output formatting — LaTeX/DOCX (via Pandoc)/PDF/Markdown

---

Trigger Conditions

Trigger Keywords

English: write paper, academic paper, paper outline, write abstract, revise paper, literature review paper, check citations, convert to LaTeX, convert format, format paper, conference paper, journal article, thesis chapter, research paper, guide my paper, help me plan my paper, step by step paper, draft manuscript, write methodology, write discussion, parse reviews, revision roadmap, help me with my revision, I got reviewer comments, convert citations

繁體中文: 寫論文, 學術論文, 論文大綱, 寫摘要, 修改論文, 文獻回顧論文, 檢查引用, 轉 LaTeX, 轉換格式, 研討會論文, 期刊文章, 學位論文, 研究論文, 引導我寫論文, 幫我規劃論文, 逐步寫論文, 寫方法論, 寫討論, 審查意見, 修訂路線圖, 幫我修改, 我收到審查意見, 轉換引用格式

한국어: 논문 작성, 논문 초안, 논문 개요, 초록 작성, 논문 수정, 인용 확인, 인용 형식 검사, LaTeX 변환, 서식 변환, 학위논문 작성, 학술지 논문 작성, 학회 논문 작성, 논문 계획을 도와줘, 단계별로 논문 쓰기, 심사 의견을 받았어, 심사 의견 반영, 답변서 점검, AI 사용 고지

Plan Mode Activation

Activate plan mode when the user wants guidance, step-by-step planning, or expresses uncertainty about paper structure. Default rule: when ambiguous between plan and full, prefer plan.

See references/guides/plan_mode_protocol.md for full intent signals and activation rules.

Does NOT Trigger

Distinction from ars-deep-research

---

Agent Team (12 Agents)

---

Output Formats

Text Formats

LaTeX (.tex + .bib), DOCX (via Pandoc), PDF (via LaTeX or Pandoc), Markdown.

Figures

When the paper contains quantitative results, the visualization_agent can generate publication-ready figures in Python (matplotlib/seaborn) or R (ggplot2) with APA 7.0 formatting and colorblind-safe palettes. Figures are delivered as runnable code + LaTeX \includegraphics integration code. See references/guides/statistical_visualization_standards.md for chart type decision trees and code templates.

Citation Formats

APA 7.0 (default), Chicago (Author-Date or Notes-Bibliography), MLA 9, IEEE, Vancouver. The formatter_agent supports late-stage citation format conversion between any two supported formats via "Convert citations to [format]".

---

Orchestration Workflow (8 Phases)

Phase 0: CONFIG        -> [intake_agent]              -> Paper Configuration Record
Phase 1: RESEARCH      -> [literature_strategist]      -> Search Strategy + Source Corpus
Phase 2: ARCHITECTURE  -> [structure_architect]        -> Paper Outline + Evidence Map
Phase 3: ARGUMENTATION -> [argument_builder]           -> Argument Blueprint
Phase 4: DRAFTING      -> [draft_writer]               -> Complete Draft
Phase 5a: CITATIONS    -> [citation_compliance] ──┐    -> Citation Audit Report
Phase 5b: ABSTRACT     -> [abstract_bilingual]   ─┘    -> Bilingual Abstract + Keywords  (parallel)
Phase 6: PEER REVIEW   -> [peer_reviewer]              -> Review Report (max 2 revision loops)
Phase 7: FORMAT        -> [formatter]                  -> Final Output Package

See references/guides/workflow_phase_details.md for detailed per-phase agent behavior and output descriptions.

Review-target criteria binding

When Phase 0 has produced an author-confirmed ReviewTargetContext, the orchestrator initializes one pointer-only ReviewCriteriaBindingManifest and uses it unchanged across the formative, internal-evaluator, and external-panel consumers. The normative lifecycle, exact marker, closed roles, and explicit degraded path are defined in references/shared/review_criteria_consumer_protocol.md.

• Phase 2 owns the FORMATIVE receipt. The Structure Architect maps selected criterion ids to planned sections and evidence needs; later writing phases reuse that receipt and do not re-resolve the target.
• Phase 6a receives the same pointer authority and Target Criteria Brief while remaining paper-blind; its pre-commitment artifact owns the INTERNAL receipt. Phase 6b receives that unchanged artifact, may assess applicability after it sees the draft, and owns any Critical/Major constructive finding sidecar.
• Scientific validity, venue fit, and submission readiness remain distinct. Criteria never authorize invented evidence, results, methods, or changes to the author's contribution claim.

Binding validation is a handoff-conformance check only. It never supplies an editorial verdict, severity, checkpoint state, or author triage. If the binding is unavailable, disclose criteria_binding_unavailable; do not claim venue alignment and do not silently reconstruct a target from model memory.

Checkpoint Rules

1. ⚠️ IRON RULE: User must confirm Paper Configuration Record before proceeding to Phase 1
2. Phase 2 -> 3: User must approve outline (can request restructuring)
3. ⚠️ IRON RULE: Max 2 revision loops; unresolved items -> "Acknowledged Limitations"
4. Peer Review Critical-severity issues block progression to Phase 7
5. User can skip Phase 1 (literature) if providing own sources

---

v3.4.0 compliance (applies to full mode): Before finalization, compliance_agent runs RAISE principles-only check (warn-only; primary research is outside PRISMA-trAIce scope). Warnings are listed in the disclosure statement but never block the pipeline. See references/shared/raise_framework.md §Scope disclaimer.

Invocation Modes

ars-academic-paper pipeline runs in 8 phases (Phase 0 intake → 7 formatting). Two invocation modes:

Mode A — orchestrator-driven (default): the pipeline_orchestrator_agent (in the ars-pipeline-orchestrator skill) runs all phases end-to-end with state tracking via Material Passport.

Mode B — phase-by-phase (cross-session resume): the user invokes one agent per phase across sessions for long-running projects. Common pattern: write the draft in one session, return next week to citation-check / abstract / peer-review independently. To resume in a fresh session, hand it the saved phase artifacts and name the phase to continue from.

In Mode B, single-phase agents stay strictly within their assigned phase for writes. The 7 single-phase agents in ars-academic-paper are: literature_strategist (P1), structure_architect (P2), draft_writer (P4/P6 per invocation), citation_compliance (P5a), abstract_bilingual (P5b), peer_reviewer (P6), formatter (P7). Reads from upstream phases are allowed.

Multi-phase agents (argument_builder P3+Plan, visualization P4+P7) do exactly the work specified by the caller's invocation for that phase — no extension to other phases in the same call. The generator-evaluator contract below additionally constrains draft_writer and peer_reviewer sub-phase behavior (Phase 4a/4b, Phase 6a/6b).

Routing into Mode B requires an explicit user signal — naming the mode (e.g. "run citation-check mode") or a [direct-mode] prefix. Ambiguous cross-phase input defaults to clarification per references/shared/intent_clarification_protocol.md.

Enforcement: Phase Boundary blocks on single-phase agents; the multi-phase envelope remains forward-scope. Where the runtime supports automated pre-tool checks they may reinforce this boundary; otherwise the orchestrator enforces it by instruction.

v3.6.6 Generator-Evaluator Contract Protocol

Authoritative orchestration block for the v3.6.6 contract-gated phase splits inside ars-academic-paper full mode. Schema 13.1 since v3.6.6 (references/shared/sprint_contract.schema.json). Templates: references/shared/contracts/writer/full.json + references/shared/contracts/evaluator/full.json. Design spec: 对应设计文档（移植版未附带） §5.

Applies to ars-academic-paper full mode only. Nine non-full modes (plan, outline-only, revision, revision-coach, abstract-only, lit-review, format-convert, citation-check, disclosure) are byte-equivalent across v3.6.5 → v3.6.6 and do not invoke this protocol. (The later-added rebuttal-audit mode is likewise non-full and does not invoke this protocol.) Pipeline boundary unchanged: ars-pipeline-orchestrator Stage 2 dispatches ars-academic-paper in plan or full mode (full only invokes this protocol); Stage 3 dispatches the separate ars-academic-reviewer skill (5-panel external editorial review). The in-pair Phase 6 evaluator under this protocol and the Stage 3 reviewer are different review layers — see design doc §5.1 audit conclusion 2.

Overview

v3.6.6 splits Phase 4 (writer drafting) and Phase 6 (in-pair evaluator review) into paper-blind / paper-visible call pairs gated by the writer_full and evaluator_full contracts. The split mirrors ars-academic-reviewer/references/guides/sprint_contract_protocol.md (the v3.6.2 reviewer pattern) but adapts it for single-agent generator modes that have no panel and (for the writer) no scoring_plan.

The load-bearing mechanism is the physical separation of calls: writer Phase 4a never sees the runtime drafting artefacts; evaluator Phase 6a never sees the writer Phase 4b draft. This destroys the "read the paper, then rationalise the standard" drift path on the in-pair self-quality gate.

Four-call structure

For each ars-academic-paper full invocation, Phase 4 + Phase 6 expand from two single calls into four separate model calls. Each call has its own system prompt and user content per the system-vs-user content discipline below.

1. Phase 4a — writer paper-blind pre-commitment.
   • System prompt: ### Phase 4a — Writer paper-blind pre-commitment sub-section in ars-academic-paper/references/draft_writer_agent.md § "v3.6.6 Generator-Evaluator Contract Protocol".
   • User content: writer_full contract JSON + paper metadata only (title, field, word_count).
   • Output: ## Acceptance Criteria Paraphrase section + terminal [PRE-COMMITMENT-ACKNOWLEDGED] tag.
   • Lint: 3 structural checks (see § "Phase 4a / 6a output lint" below).
2. Phase 4b — writer paper-visible drafting + self-scoring.
   • System prompt: ### Phase 4b — Writer paper-visible drafting + self-scoring sub-section in the same agent file.
   • User content: writer_full contract JSON (re-injected) + Phase 4a output wrapped in ... data delimiter + upstream drafting artefacts (Paper Configuration Record, Paper Outline, Argument Blueprint, Annotated Bibliography incl. its Search Strategy / Schema 2 search_strategy ( — the bound the writer fills into search-bounded novelty claims), optional Style Profile, optional Knowledge Isolation Directive).
   • Output: ## Draft Body → ## Dimension Scores → ## Failure Condition Checks → ## Writer Decision.
   • Lint: 4 structural checks (see § "Phase 4b / 6b output lint" below).
3. Phase 6a — evaluator paper-blind pre-commitment.
   • System prompt: ### Phase 6a — Evaluator paper-blind pre-commitment sub-section in ars-academic-paper/references/peer_reviewer_agent.md § "v3.6.6 Generator-Evaluator Contract Protocol".
   • User content: evaluator_full contract JSON + paper metadata + the writer's most recent `` (the writer artefact the evaluator must verify per disagreement_handling.pre_commitment_check_protocol.check_writer_artifact) +, when active, the pointer-only manifest/Target Criteria Brief/INTERNAL marker.
   • Output: ## Contract Paraphrase + ## Scoring Plan (per-dimension dimension_id / what_to_look_for / what_triggers_block / what_triggers_warn) + pointer-only binding commitment (or criteria_binding_unavailable) + terminal [PRE-COMMITMENT-ACKNOWLEDGED] tag. No additional H2 is introduced.
   • Lint: 5 structural checks.
4. Phase 6b — evaluator paper-visible scoring + decision.
   • System prompt: ### Phase 6b — Evaluator paper-visible scoring + decision sub-section in the same agent file.
   • User content: evaluator_full contract JSON (re-injected) + Phase 6a output wrapped in ... + the writer's `` (unconditional per pre_commitment_check_protocol.check_writer_artifact) + the writer Phase 4b draft (the artefact under review) + the unchanged authority when it was supplied in Phase 6a.
   • Output: ## Dimension Scores → ## Failure Condition Checks → ## Review Body → ## Evaluator Decision, plus the role marker/unavailable disclosure and a separately validated constructive sidecar when applicable.
   • Lint: 5 structural checks.

System prompt vs user content discipline

Mirrors sprint_contract_protocol.md §2 reviewer pattern verbatim:

• System prompt carries invariant policy text only: the phase sub-section instructions from the agent file's ## v3.6.6 Generator-Evaluator Contract Protocol block, the lint description, and the phase-boundary tag conventions.
• User content carries the contract JSON (re-injected per call) plus the runtime inputs allowed at that phase: paper metadata, / delimiter blocks, upstream drafting artefacts, the paper draft.

All dynamic LLM output (Phase Na runtime emissions, paper content) lives in user content via data delimiters, never in the system prompt. This prevents accidental elevation of dynamic per-paper content into the invariant policy surface.

Schema field name vs runtime emission distinction

pre_commitment_artifacts (snake_case, backticks) is the schema field name in references/shared/sprint_contract.schema.json — a configuration declaration in the frozen contract baseline. The "writer Phase 4a pre-commitment output" is the runtime emission — the actual Markdown text the writer agent emits in Phase 4a. The runtime emission lives inside `` and gets handed off to Phase 4b / Phase 6a / Phase 6b. Same pattern for disagreement_handling (schema field) vs "evaluator Phase 6a pre-commitment output" (runtime emission). Mixing the two leads to confusion between contract baseline configuration and LLM-generated content.

Phase 4a / 6a output lint

Mode-specific structural check counts, per sprint_contract_protocol.md §4 enumeration convention:

• Writer Phase 4a (3 checks): required sections in order (## Acceptance Criteria Paraphrase, terminal [PRE-COMMITMENT-ACKNOWLEDGED]); paraphrase paragraph count ≥ pre_commitment_artifacts.acceptance_criteria_paraphrase.minimum_dimensions; Phase 4a content references contract JSON + paper metadata only. No ## Scoring Plan section — writer_full carries no scoring_plan.
• Evaluator Phase 6a (5 checks): required sections in order (## Contract Paraphrase, ## Scoring Plan, terminal [PRE-COMMITMENT-ACKNOWLEDGED]); paraphrase paragraph count ≥ disagreement_handling.paraphrase_minimum_dimensions; one ### : subsection per acceptance dimension; each scoring_plan subsection contains disagreement_handling.scoring_plan.per_dimension_criteria four-field shape (dimension_id, what_to_look_for, what_triggers_block, what_triggers_warn); Phase 6a content references contract JSON + paper metadata + the writer's `` plus the paper-blind pointer authority only (no full draft / paper content). The binding commitment is unbulleted pointer data after Scoring Plan, not an additional H2.

Retry semantics: lint failure on the first attempt → retry once with the specific lint gap hinted in the system prompt; second failure → mark this role unusable per § "Single-agent generator unusable handling" below.

Phase 4b / 6b output lint

• Writer Phase 4b (4 checks): required sections in order — ## Draft Body, ## Dimension Scores, ## Failure Condition Checks, ## Writer Decision; Dimension Scores one-to-one across the seven writer dimensions D1–D7 (per references/shared/contracts/writer/full.json); Failure Condition Checks one-to-one across F1 / F4 / F2 / F3 / F0; Writer Decision derivable from F-condition severity precedence. No multi-dissent retry (writer has no scoring_plan to dissent against). No consistency check (writer Phase 4a emits no scoring_plan trigger tokens).
• Evaluator Phase 6b (5 checks): required sections in order — ## Dimension Scores, ## Failure Condition Checks, ## Review Body, ## Evaluator Decision; Dimension Scores one-to-one across the five evaluator dimensions D1–D5 (per references/shared/contracts/evaluator/full.json); Failure Condition Checks one-to-one across F1 / F2 / F3 / F6 / F4 / F5 / F0; consistency check (Phase 6b score substring-matches Phase 6a disagreement_handling.scoring_plan.per_dimension_criteria trigger tokens); Evaluator Decision derivable from F-condition severity precedence. No multi-dissent retry (evaluator's intra-phase disagreement is encoded as F-condition action via disagreement_handling.disagreement_resolution, not as a retry trigger).

Multi-dissent retry remains reviewer-only (ars-academic-reviewer skill); generator modes have no panel and no scoring_plan dissent anchor.

Lint count summary across the three modes:

Single-agent generator unusable handling

When a writer or evaluator phase becomes unusable (Phase Na lint twice fail OR Phase Nb lint fail), ars-academic-paper emits a phase-level abort tag and routes to user intervention:

• Writer Phase 4 unusable → [GENERATOR-PHASE-ABORTED: role=writer, contract=, reason=] → abort ars-academic-paper Phase 4 → user intervention decides retry / fallback / regression to Phase 3 (Argument Blueprint).
• Evaluator Phase 6 unusable → [GENERATOR-PHASE-ABORTED: role=evaluator, contract=, reason=] → abort ars-academic-paper Phase 6 → user intervention decides retry / fallback / regression to Phase 5 (Drafting completion).

[GENERATOR-PHASE-ABORTED] does not constitute a valid Phase 6b emission and cannot enter Stage 3 reviewer dispatch. Two valid Stage 3 entry paths exist (per design doc §5.1):

• Standard path: evaluator Phase 6b emits F0 evaluator_decision=accept or F4 evaluator_decision=accept_with_dissent_note.
• Exceptional path: evaluator Phase 6b emits F5 evaluator_decision=flag_for_reviewer_stage after the in-pair revision loop exhausts at round 2 with mandatory-dimension block recurring.

ars-academic-paper carries no panel cardinality invariant for writer / evaluator (no panel_size field — Schema 13.1 §3.3.5 reviewer-conditional). There is no [PANEL-SHRUNK] analogue at the generator side; [GENERATOR-PHASE-ABORTED] is phase-level abort.

Operational monitor: track [GENERATOR-PHASE-ABORTED] rate over the first three months of v3.6.6 deployment. The denominator is per ars-academic-paper full run — one user-perceived top-level invocation. The 5% threshold is (runs_with_any_abort) / (total_runs). If the rate exceeds 5%, v3.6.7 introduces graceful-degradation fallback (see § "Known limitations" below).

Cross-session resume scope

The v3.6.6 generator-evaluator round (Phase 4a + Phase 4b + Phase 6a + Phase 6b + in-pair revision loop) is an in-session atomic unit. Manual session split mid-round → writer Phase 4a output is lost; new session must restart ars-academic-paper full mode from Phase 0.

The v3.6.3 ARS_PASSPORT_RESET=1 reset_boundary[] mechanism (per ars-pipeline-orchestrator/references/guides/passport_as_reset_boundary.md) operates at ars-pipeline-orchestrator Stage boundaries, not at ars-academic-paper internal phase boundaries. ars-academic-paper internal phases (4a / 4b / 6a / 6b) are not boundary points; no kind: boundary ledger entry is emitted between them. v3.6.7+ may introduce pre_commitment_history[] to persist writer Phase 4a artefacts across sessions if operational data warrants — see § "Known limitations" below.

Known limitations

• No graceful-degradation fallback in v3.6.6: when the writer or evaluator phase aborts via [GENERATOR-PHASE-ABORTED], ars-academic-paper full aborts and routes to user intervention. v3.6.7 may introduce a fallback that degrades the affected phase to v3.6.5 single-call behaviour and logs the degradation. v3.6.6 ships with abort-only behaviour. See § "Single-agent generator unusable handling" above for the operational 5% / three-month monitor.
• No cross-session resume mid-round: the four-phase generator-evaluator round is an in-session atomic unit. Manual session split mid-round loses the writer Phase 4a artefact and forces restart from Phase 0. v3.6.7+ may introduce a pre_commitment_history[] ledger entry in Schema 9 to persist the writer Phase 4a artefact across session boundaries; v3.6.6 does not implement.
• In-pair Phase 6 evaluator vs ars-academic-reviewer external review: the in-pair peer_reviewer_agent (Phase 6 evaluator with the v3.6.6 contract gate) and the standalone ars-academic-reviewer skill (Stage 3 5-panel external editorial review) serve different review layers and remain documented as known technical debt per design doc §1 known limitations. Routing / merge decisions are deferred to v3.7.x.

Operational Modes (11 Modes)

See references/guides/mode_selection_guide.md for details.

Disclosure dispatch contract: when mode=disclosure, agent 9 takes its standalone branch and MUST load references/guides/disclosure_mode_protocol.md before producing text. It does not run normal Phase 7 formatting or substitute the generic full-pipeline AI statement; the protocol selects the venue database or policy-anchor path and owns all halt/render decisions.

Quick Mode Selection Guide

Spectrum (v3.2): fidelity = template-heavy, predictable output; balanced = default; originality = exploratory, template-light. See references/shared/mode_spectrum.md for the full cross-skill spectrum table.

Not sure? Start with plan — it will guide you step by step. disclosure is a finishing step — run it after the paper is drafted, targeting the venue you plan to submit to.

Committee-correspondence routing: use the revision-coach variant only when the user explicitly identifies a real committee/institutional review office. Load references/guides/committee_correspondence_protocol.md; do not infer official authority from tone. The separate artifact is a source-accounted drafting aid and never enters peer-review Schema 11.

Mode Selection Logic

See references/guides/mode_selection_guide.md for trigger-to-mode mappings and the full selection flowchart.

---

Rebuttal-Audit Mode

rebuttal-audit evaluates an author's existing rebuttal / response-to-reviewers draft for coverage, tone, and evidence. It is advisory QA — it does not write or rewrite the response.

Input gate (routing): activate rebuttal-audit only when the user supplies BOTH (a) the reviewer comments / decision letter AND (b) an existing rebuttal/response draft to evaluate. If only (a) is present (no draft yet), route to revision-coach (which generates a response skeleton). If intent is ambiguous, clarify rather than guess.

What it produces:

• Per-comment coverage table — every reviewer concern marked addressed / partially / missing in the draft.
• Gap list — concerns the draft fails to answer.
• Risk flags — tone too combative, claims made without evidence, or a response that misreads the reviewer's actual point.
• Improvement suggestions (advisory).

IRON RULE — integrity boundary (no false certification): rebuttal-audit reuses revision_coach_agent's comment-parsing capability, but a standalone invocation runs outside the pipeline and therefore never passes Stage 4.5 final integrity. It MUST NOT emit a Schema 11 commitment_extracted ledger, MUST NOT write to the Material Passport, and MUST NOT mark the package ready_to_submit or any verified status. Producing a Schema 11 artifact would falsely imply the response entered the pipeline's traceability system. The output is an advisory QA report only.

Boundary vs re-review: ars-academic-reviewer's re-review mode verifies the revised manuscript (did the author's claimed changes actually appear in the paper) and runs inside the pipeline. rebuttal-audit verifies the response letter itself (does the rebuttal cover every comment, is its tone/evidence sound) and runs standalone, advisory. Different artifacts, different layers.

---

Revision Mode Patch Protocol

In revision mode, draft_writer_agent does NOT re-emit the complete paper. The round runs anchorize → patch → deterministic apply → finalizer, confining the regeneration surface to the blocks the revision explicitly touches (DELEGATE-52 blast-radius containment; spec 对应设计文档（移植版未附带）):

1. Anchorize the draft: every block gets a stable <!--block:BNNNN--> marker and an exact manifest. Nothing rewrites the draft before apply.
2. Bind explicit authority: validate the immutable revision-roadmap/1.0, exact registered claim surfaces, and complete author-adjudication/1.0. The roadmap keeps severity, obligation, cost scope, and bounded consequence independent; author triage and exact targets live only in the separate explicit sidecar.
3. The writer emits current patch 1.1 (references/shared/contracts/patch/revision_patch.schema.json) as a sidecar — every op cites only will_address items, stays inside exact target/operation scopes, and explicitly declares claim/collateral arrays. Registered claim movement needs an exact author-approved replacement; declined overlap needs exact collateral authority.
4. Deterministic apply replays every binding before structural analysis or write. Current report format 1.3 carries the mechanically derived authorization witness and the honest unregistered_claim_drift_review_required E6 boundary. If E6 later detects a drift on an unregistered surface, the checkpoint has no default-open route: the author must explicitly choose restore, authorize_with_reason, or pause. Build and replay validation bind each choice to one explicitly named run-local raw session-event artifact; the sidecar retains its recomputed digest but neither path nor message. Untouched blocks remain byte-identical.
5. Continuous evidence: every review write, all-declined no-op, and integrity-correction round enters revision-evidence-bundle/1.0, from an exact integrity-PASS draft to the exact final draft. A scope escalation requires a new explicit sidecar or a narrower patch; legacy full re-emission cannot claim current authorization PASS.

Orchestrated runs follow pipeline_orchestrator_agent.md § Revision-Round Patch Sequencing; Mode B users run the same scripts by hand — exact commands in references/guides/revision_patch_protocol.md. Honest boundary: registered surfaces and exact edit authority are machine-replayed, but unregistered semantic drift still requires E6 review. 自动校验脚本（移植版未附带，以文字规则为准） closes explicit handling of reported rows only; it does not make model-mediated detection deterministic or complete. The ars-academic-paper full in-pair Phase 6→4 loop is outside this standalone/pipeline revision contract.

---

Plan Mode: Chapter-by-Chapter Guided Planning

Socratic mode that guides users through paper planning one chapter at a time. Builds a complete Paper Blueprint through structured dialogue.

See references/guides/plan_mode_protocol.md for the full chapter-by-chapter dialogue flow and Paper Blueprint structure.

---

Handoff Protocol: ars-deep-research -> ars-academic-paper

intake_agent automatically detects ars-deep-research materials (RQ Brief / Bibliography / Synthesis / INSIGHT Collection) and skips redundant steps. It also requires the exact builder-produced preregistration-artifact/1.0 handoff receipt and, when provided, its explicitly named companion. Intake validates and carries those bytes unchanged; it does not infer status, repair/rebuild the sidecar, follow its display path, or substitute a planning template. A later explicit user supply must be represented by a new sidecar from the named deterministic builder. See ars-deep-research/SKILL.md Handoff Protocol and references/shared/cross_document_consistency_advisory_protocol.md.

---

Failure Paths

See references/guides/failure_paths.md for details. Quick reference:

---

Full Academic Pipeline

See ars-pipeline-orchestrator/SKILL.md for the complete workflow.

---

Phase 0: Configuration Interview

See references/intake_agent.md for the complete field definitions of the Phase 0 configuration interview. The interview covers 9 core items: paper type, discipline, target journal, citation format, output format, language, abstract, word count, and existing materials — plus co-authors, funding, optional style calibration, the domain evidence profile (Step 12), the citation-verification level (Step 13, ), and the independent retraction policy (Step 14, ). Both citation policies are mark-only by default with explicit strict opt-in, seeding terminal_policies.citation_existence and terminal_policies.retraction respectively. When an author confirms a venue