Paperjury

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. The drafter input passes the significance floor (node scripts/ledger.js floor: valid-fixable majors only) and the ledger view is initialized collapsed (--display collapse: minors fold into a Minor digest, majors stay itemized). 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).

Soft update reminder: at the start of each PaperJury invocation, before choosing the mode or editing a manuscript, run node scripts/check-update.js from the skill root unless PAPERJURY_DISABLE_UPDATE_CHECK=1 is set. If it reports an available update, show the notice once and continue. If the check is skipped, silent, or cannot reach GitHub, continue without mentioning it; update checks are never allowed to block review or editing.

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.
2. 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 -> {trial (+ escalate) || polish} -> recall-audit -> drafter -> {edit-audit | meaning-audit} -> clerk. The DETERMINISTIC guards run orchestrator-side via Bash between workflow calls (the Workflow sandbox has no fs): scripts/ holds decompose, extract-docx, ledger, journal, apply-patch, anchor-diff, cross-ref, spine, rekey, compile-guard, compliance-check (plus doctor, the install/repo health check: npm run doctor). 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.
3. 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, then route it through the INTAKE FORMAT GATE by extension. Four routes, none silent:

  • .tex: the native LaTeX path. Detect the main source (the .tex with \documentclass / \begin{document}, or the file the user names). If several candidates, ask.
  • .md / .markdown / .txt: the native text path. The full multi-round engine runs; compile checks are not applicable (compile-guard returns compiled:null plus a markdown sanity lint, an honest UNKNOWN, never a fake pass); LaTeX-only compliance checks are skipped and reported as skipped_checks.
  • .docx: if a .paper-review/ working copy AND a ledger already exist, REUSE them, never re-extract. If the sha256 of the docx no longer matches the ledger's meta.original_sha256, STOP and ask: continue on the working copy, or extract --force knowingly discarding the applied edits (an explicit new-intake event). Otherwise run node scripts/extract-docx.js extract <file.docx> (one time) and tell the user explicitly: the original Word file is never modified; all rounds run on .paper-review/<basename>.md (print the full working-copy path); they get back the edited Markdown plus a per-edit change list; the extraction report lists everything dropped or degraded. Write ledger meta {manuscript: <working copy>, working_format: 'markdown', source_format: 'docx', original, original_sha256, extracted_at, extraction_report}. If the report shows nonzero tracked-change counts, seed a round-1 author-required ledger row ("manuscript contains unresolved tracked changes; accepted-all for review").
  • any other extension (.doc, .pdf, .rtf, .odt, ...): explicitly unsupported. Say so and suggest exporting .docx / .md / .tex; never silently degrade.

  After intake, the working copy IS the manuscript for every rule and gate in this file (sign-off, spine freeze, round-0 baseline, edit safety, journal); the original uploaded file is permanently read-only.

• 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. On a .docx: if a working copy already exists, it IS the manuscript, edit it; if none exists, offer an explicit choice between (a) paste-back, returning the rewritten passage as text for the user to apply in Word (no working copy), and (b) running the one-time intake extraction and editing the working copy. Never edit the .docx file itself.
2. 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 patch to do exactly what was asked. The Common guards apply (markup-safe for the working format, plain CS prose, no log leakage into the manuscript).
3. Self-gate. Run logic-check on the drafted passage.
4. Sign-off. Show the patch and get explicit author approval (hard rule 1).
5. 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