paperjury

name: paperjury description: Three modes for CS-conference papers (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV vision, ACL/EMNLP/NAACL NLP, ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/AAAI ML). DIRECT-EDIT mode (common): the user describes a change in Chinese or English and the LaTeX is edited directly through a CS-venue writing toolkit with author sign-off (use for 改这段 / 把中文想法写成 latex / polish / de-AI / translate / compress a passage). REVIEW mode (occasional, pre-submission): harden the paper through an adversarial courtroom review engine (N holistic domain reviewers / contestability routing / two-sided trial / three-way verdict / clerk-converged multi-round loop) with consensus-gated, author-signed revisions (use for review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review). AUTO mode (unattended, opt-in via /goal): run the review-revise loop toward a verifiable goal, applying safe fixes under a drift-bounded policy and queueing risky ones. Resolves all inputs at runtime, no hardcoded paths. Not a from-scratch drafter (use ml-paper-writing) and not an official-venue rebuttal. version: 0.5.0 author: Yiran Wang license: MIT tags: [Academic Writing, Peer Review, Adversarial Review, CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, AAAI, Workflow, LaTeX] ---

PaperJury (CS-conference paper review and editing)

PaperJury edits and hardens any CS-conference paper. It runs in three modes. In direct-edit mode (the common case) the user describes a change in Chinese or English and the LaTeX is edited directly through a CS-venue writing toolkit, with author sign-off. In review mode (occasional, pre-submission) it exposes the manuscript to a harsh, multi-perspective courtroom review engine that adjudicates each issue (N holistic domain reviewers -> contestability routing -> two-sided trial -> three-way verdict, with a polish track and a clerk-converged multi-round loop), gates every change behind consensus, and tracks issues in a durable ledger. In auto mode (unattended, opt-in via /goal) it runs that same engine toward a verifiable goal, applying safe fixes under a drift-bounded policy and queueing the risky ones for one human pass on return. All modes share the same writing toolkit, hard rules, ledger, and author sign-off (auto via up-front policy sign-off plus the queue, see hard rule 1).

This skill is fully generic. It ships no hardcoded paths, no project files, and no embedded paper. Everything specific to a given paper (where the manuscript is, the venue, who signs off, the house style) is resolved at runtime or supplied by a config the project owns. The skill itself is the backbone; any concrete paper is just an instantiation of it.

Scope: CS conferences only. Three venue families, each with its own style profile:

• •Vision: CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, WACV
• •NLP: ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, COLING
• •ML: ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, AAAI, COLM

When to use / when not

Three modes, one skill. Pick by what the user is asking for:

• •Direct-edit mode (the common case). The user describes a change in Chinese

(or English) and wants the LaTeX edited directly: "把这段改成...", "polish this paragraph", "把我对 intro 的想法写成 LaTeX", "tighten this". No review panel; go straight to drafting the patch through the writing toolkit, with author sign-off.

• •Review mode (occasional, pre-submission). The user wants the paper critiqued

or hardened: review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review, or iterating a draft to clear reviewer-raised issues. This runs the courtroom review engine (references/review-engine-v3.md).

• •Auto mode (unattended). The user opts in via /goal (or config mode: auto)

to run the review-revise loop AFK toward a verifiable goal. Establish the spine up front (the one human step), then the engine applies safe fixes under the bounded-aggressive policy and queues the rest. See references/auto-mode.md. Never self-detect auto; it is explicit only.

Do NOT use for: writing a paper from scratch (use ml-paper-writing), figure or diagram generation (use academic-plotting), or an official-venue rebuttal (this is a pre-submission self-hardening loop, no score gate).

The three primitives

This paradigm is expressed as Skill + Workflow + Memory. Each carries one concern; together they replace the heavy per-round file-and-flag machinery a hand-rolled version accumulates.

1. Skill (this folder) = entry point + methodology. The protocol, the

reviewer panel, the contestability routing, the writing toolkit, the human gates. Detail in references/review-engine-v3.md, references/reviewer-personas.md, references/writing-toolkit.md.

1. Workflow = fan-out engine. The semantic, no-human-in-the-middle steps run as

Workflows (parallelism + schema-validated output by construction). The simple panel is workflows/review-panel.workflow.js; the v3 courtroom engine is assign-reviewers -> reading-check -> coverage-auditor -> merge ->

orchestrator-side via Bash between workflow calls (the Workflow sandbox has no fs): scripts/ holds decompose, ledger, journal, apply-patch, anchor-diff, cross-ref, spine, compile-guard, compliance-check. Build note: this harness delivers a workflow's args as a JSON STRING, so every workflow parses it defensively. Protocol + every orchestrator seam: references/review-engine-v3.md.

1. Memory = durable state + learned conventions. Two layers:

- Ledger (LEDGER.json resolved at runtime = the machine source of truth, plus a rendered LEDGER.md view; managed by scripts/ledger.js): the live, mutable issue state across rounds and sessions. Schema + status state machine: references/ledger-schema.md. - Claude memory (the active project's memory): stable conventions worth recalling next session, e.g. this paper's house style, venue, persona tuning.

Resolving inputs at runtime (no hardcoded paths)

The skill ships ZERO hardcoded paths or project files. On trigger it resolves each input by discovery first, then asking:

• •manuscript: detect the main source (the .tex with \documentclass /

\begin{document}, or the file the user names). If several candidates, ask.

• •venue_family: the user can name it, or an agent reads the class file to

GUESS the family (e.g. a cvpr/iccv style, an acl style, a neurips/iclr style). There is no hardcoded venue list and no deterministic detector; if unclear, ask.

• •ledger: default to <manuscript-dir>/.paper-review/LEDGER.json (the machine

source of truth; scripts/ledger.js also renders a LEDGER.md view). Create if absent, reuse if present. The user may point elsewhere.

• •author: ask who signs off on edits (default: the current user). Every edit

needs explicit authorization.

• •personas: default to N domain-expert holistic reviewers assigned at runtime

(assign-reviewers, from the project gatekeeper core + a generated domain overlay); the three generic lenses in references/reviewer-personas.md are the degrade fallback. If the project defines its own named reviewer subagents, use them as agentType; otherwise inline the persona prompts.

• •style_profile: start from the venue-family default; refine from any

conventions recalled from memory or pinned in a project config.

A project MAY pin these by dropping a config in ITS OWN repo (see configs/config-template.md for the shape). That file is owned by the project, never by this skill. At round start, recall any pinned conventions from memory.

Direct-edit mode (the common case)

The user states a change in Chinese or English; you draft and apply the LaTeX edit. No panel, no ledger, no discussion. Minimal flow:

1. Locate. Resolve the manuscript and find the target passage the instruction

refers to (a paragraph, sentence, caption, table cell). If it is ambiguous on a large file, ask which passage; do not guess.

1. Draft. Pick the writing-toolkit prompt matching the instruction

(translate-to-english for a Chinese idea, polish-english / de-ai for a rewrite, compress / expand for length, caption / experiment-analysis for those units) and draft the LaTeX patch to do exactly what was asked. The Common guards apply (LaTeX-safe, plain CS prose, no log leakage into the .tex).

1. Self-gate. Run logic-check on the drafted passage.
2. Sign-off. Show the patch and get explicit author approval (hard rule 1).
3. Apply. Write only the patch into the manuscript; keep any back-translation

or note author-side.

This is the writing toolkit used on its own. Escalate to review mode only when the user wants the paper critiqued or hardened, not for a single asked-for edit.

Why fan-out is a Workflow and the rest is conversation

The reviewer panel and the trial jury are pure fan-out: spawn, collect, merge. A Workflow does this deterministically (parallelism enforced by construction, structured outputs via schema, isolation by default since each agent sees only the prompt you give it). That isolation is what replaces the snapshot-and-whitelist defense: a reviewer cannot see peers, the ledger, or prior rounds because you simply do not put them in its prompt.

But the loop has genuine human gates (the author reviews the issue list, gives per-issue direction, authorizes edits, breaks ties). Workflows run to completion and return a result; they do not pause mid-run for hours of human input. So:

• •fan-out steps (reviewers, trial, polish, recall, merge) -> Workflow
• •human gates (per-issue direction, authorization, override) -> main conversation turns
• •cross-round truth (the ledger) + stable conventions -> Memory

Review mode: one round, end to end

The full adversarial loop (the v3 courtroom engine). Use it to harden the paper, not for a single asked-for edit (that is direct-edit mode). Full protocol + the 14 orchestrator seams: references/review-engine-v3.md. [WF] = Workflow step, [det] = deterministic Node guard run orchestrator-side between workflow calls, [HUMAN] = author gate, [LEDGER] = state write.

1. Resolve + recall. Resolve the inputs above; recall this paper's conventions

from memory. Pick scope: full (whole paper) or passage (one section / para / claim).

1. `[det]` decompose. Split the manuscript into reading units + stable

passage_ids + the canonical section list.

1. `[WF]` assign-reviewers + `[HUMAN]` confirm. Name N subfields (2-4,

default 3); instantiate N holistic domain reviewers from the gatekeeper core + a generated overlay. An unconfirmable slot degrades per slot to a generic gatekeeper (the three generic lenses in reviewer-personas.md are the fallback). The author confirms the assignment (or pins it via config).

1. `[WF]` reading-check. Each reviewer reads the WHOLE paper → weaknesses

cannot quote = did not read} + one overall_confidence + a per-section coverage report. Anti-skim is three layers: [det] per-section quote-verify, [WF] coverage-auditor, [WF] targeted re-invoke.

1. `[WF]` merge. Semantic dedup across reviewers; derive significance (MAX) /

kind (substantive-dominates) / corroboration. [LEDGER] intake as raised.

1. `[det]` route. mechanical → polish; substantive&minor → polish;

substantive&major → trial (two parallel tracks).

1. `[WF]` trial. Per substantive-major charge: a whole-paper DEFENSE → 5

decorrelated local-context jurors (+ on-demand expansion) → a deterministic verdict (decide iff quorum surviving >= ceil(0.8*jurySize) AND one side > 60% of surviving votes; else escalate to 12). Verdict ∈ {invalid-drop, valid-fixable, author-required, escalate}; the judge sets a close_criterion ONLY for a valid-fixable charge, satisfiable by editing existing text (no new data). [WF] polish runs the off-gate mechanical/minor track in parallel (never silently dropped).

1. `[WF]` recall-audit. Mode A revives wrongly-dropped charges; Mode B spot-checks

strong-consensus majors BEFORE the edit. Runs before the drafter.

1. `[HUMAN]` Authorize + `[WF]` drafter + edit-safety. On authorization, the

drafter writes the minimal patch per surviving valid-fixable. The edit-safety chain gates it: [det] anchor-diff + cross-ref → [WF] meaning-audit (frozen anchor, four-state) / edit-audit (risky non-anchor); [det] apply-patch + compile-guard land a passing patch and [LEDGER] mark closed; a drift / anchor / failed edit is reverted and queued. Revision logs / back-translations stay author-side.

1. `[WF]` clerk + report. The clerk reconciles the round boundary (carried

open-questions vs this round's edits, via a passage_id + similarity merge key) and emits convergence counts. Summarize new/closed counts; in review mode do not auto-start the next round (auto mode drives the outer loop via /goal).

GATE: node scripts/ledger.js gate = 0 gate-blocking active major (gate-blocking = {raised, in-trial, re-trial, valid-fixable}; author-required / queued / dropped / closed are gate-OK and author-required accumulates to the queue). Full protocol + ledger schema + status machine: references/review-engine-v3.md, references/ledger-schema.md. The legacy single-pass 3-reviewer panel (workflows/review-panel.workflow.js, the discussion-mode flow in references/methodology.md) is kept only as a quick check.

Hard rules (load-bearing, venue-agnostic)

1. Never edit the manuscript without explicit author sign-off. Auto-mode

carve-out: the rule HOLDS; auto satisfies it via UP-FRONT sign-off (the spine confirmation + the pre-authorized bounded-aggressive policy) plus the return queue, not per-edit sign-off. Nothing outside the authorized envelope is applied.

1. Reviewers / jurors are isolated. Fresh eyes per round: no cross-talk, no

prior-round leakage, no sight of the ledger. Enforced by (a) what goes into each agent's prompt AND (b) an explicit ISOLATION instruction in every reviewer-type prompt telling the agent to judge only the quoted text and not read files (workflow agents have read tools and will otherwise sometimes roam).

1. A valid-fixable issue carries a `close_criterion` (one concrete sentence an

edit must satisfy), set by the judge at trial; it is null at intake.

1. No leakage into the reviewed text. Revision logs, back-translations, and

self-check verdicts are author-side aids; they never enter the manuscript or any frozen snapshot.

1. Disagreement resolves through discussion, then override (logged), never a

silent dismissal.

1. No hardcoded paths or project files in the skill. Resolve at runtime.

Memory convention

• •At round start: recall the paper's conventions (house style, venue, persona

tuning) from memory; read the resolved LEDGER.json for open issues.

• •During the round: the ledger is the only mutable truth; update it at merge,

trial verdicts, recall, and close.

• •After the round: persist any newly learned stable convention to memory (e.g. a

house-style rule a reviewer surfaced), not the transient issue state.

Maximizing it under ultracode

The fan-out engine implements the strong form directly (workflows/review-panel.workflow.js):

• •loop-until-dry: re-runs independent fresh panels and accumulates only issues

not seen before, stopping after dryStop consecutive passes that add no surviving issue (hard cap maxRounds). Raises recall past a single pass.

• •adversarial verify: each new issue faces perspective-diverse skeptics

(misreading / already-addressed / scope-or-severity) and is kept unless a majority refute it, filtering plausible-but-wrong issues before they reach the ledger. Bias is to keep, so real flaws are not lost.

Toggle via args: ultracode on -> defaults (maxRounds 4, dryStop 2, verify true); ultracode off -> pass {maxRounds:1, verify:false} for the basic single-panel form. The loop is budget-aware and stops early if the token budget runs low.

Capabilities and status

Built: the review engine; the submission-readiness checker (deterministic desk-reject screening plus a real LaTeX compile, degrading to a structural lint when no toolchain is present); and auto mode (the review-revise loop toward a goal under a drift-bounded policy, applying safe fixes and queueing risky ones for author review). Roadmap: vision-based layout verification, automatic venue detection from the class file, and reviewer personas tuned to each venue community.

Related skills

• •ml-paper-writing: from-scratch drafting, citation verification (never

hallucinate citations), conference checklists. This loop borrows its sentence-level guidance for the edit-drafting step rather than duplicating it.

• •academic-plotting: figure and architecture-diagram generation (out of scope

here; this loop edits text and captions, not figure images).