14 added, 2 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: revision-escalation
description: Stop repeated failed writing, coding, manuscript, rebuttal, or restructuring revisions when the same issue has gone through 3+ unsatisfactory edits, vague feedback such as still wrong/weird/unclear/weak/越改越乱, version contamination, or possible gap/claim/evidence/venue-fit drift.
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Edit, Write, Bash
---
# /revision-escalation - 3-Strike Revision Control
## Purpose
Prevent repeated local patches from making a draft or code path more inconsistent. Use this when the issue may no longer be wording or implementation detail, but specification, structure, evidence, or version-control drift.
## Trigger Words
This skill activates on: `revision escalation`, `3-strike`, `three strikes`, `stop and diagnose`, `still wrong`, `still weird`, `unclear`, `weak`, `越改越乱`, `还是不对`, `还是怪`, `不够清楚`, `逻辑还是混乱`, `/revision-escalation`.
## Core Rule
If the same issue remains unresolved after 3 revision attempts, treat it as a specification or structure problem before treating it as another local editing task.
Do not make a fourth patch immediately.
+ Repeated feedback that the manuscript is becoming more abstract, no longer
+ states who it helps, or contains individually correct sentences without a
+ recognisable paper spine is a structural signal even when fewer than three
+ formal edit contracts have failed. Pause and compare the current draft with
+ the author-intent and argument baselines.
+
## Revision Escalation Check
Before editing again, classify the problem:
| Category | Meaning | Next action |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Underspecified request | Target, constraint, audience, venue, or expected output is missing. | Ask for a concrete target before editing. |
| Ambiguous feedback | Feedback is evaluative but not operational: "weird", "weak", "unclear", "not good enough". | Ask what should change. |
| Local execution problem | The goal is clear, but the previous patch implemented it incorrectly. | Make one small targeted patch. |
- | Structural mismatch | The issue affects the research question, gap, contribution, evidence chain, section structure, module boundary, or venue framing. | Propose a restructure plan before editing. |
+ | Structural mismatch | The issue affects the real-world problem, intended use, research object, research question, primary experiment, gap, contribution, evidence chain, section structure, module boundary, or venue framing. | Propose a restructure plan before editing. |
| Evidence gap | The desired claim is unsupported by available data, experiments, citations, or files. | Downgrade the claim or request evidence. |
| Version contamination | Repeated patches have mixed old assumptions with new requirements, causing inconsistency, duplication, or bloat. | Recommend a new version, branch, or consolidated brief. |
## Required Response
When triggered, respond in this structure before any patch:
```md
I should pause before making another patch.
This issue has already gone through several revision rounds and may not be a local wording or implementation problem anymore.
Current diagnosis:
* Category:
* Why:
* What is missing or conflicting:
* Recommended next action:
Options:
A. Clarify the concrete target and continue a local patch.
B. Consolidate all current requirements into a single brief, then retry.
C. Create a new version or branch and restructure the section/module.
D. Reframe the paper/project from the research question, gap, and evidence chain.
```
## Academic Writing Rule
Classify manuscript work before editing:
- Local patch: wording, grammar, citation format, figure caption, table formatting, or one paragraph.
- Section-level restructure: one section changes, but the research question, contribution, and evidence chain stay stable.
- Full reframing: title, abstract, introduction, research question, gap, contribution, methods-results alignment, discussion, or venue framing changes.
- For full reframing, do not directly rewrite the manuscript. First produce a reframing brief with target venue, research question, gap, core claim, available evidence, claims that must not be made, and proposed new structure.
+ For full reframing, do not directly rewrite the manuscript. First produce an
+ old-versus-proposed reframing brief with target venue, real-world problem,
+ intended use, research object, research question, primary experiment,
+ supporting analyses, gap, contribution order, headline claim, evidence
+ boundary, evidence baseline, argument baseline, available evidence, claims
+ that must not be made, and proposed new structure. The author must approve the
+ new spine before editing resumes.
## Red Flags
Stop and diagnose when thinking:
- "One more patch should fix it."
- "The user is still dissatisfied, but I can just rewrite harder."
- "The wording is awkward" while the evidence chain or contribution boundary is unstable.
- "The current version is messy, but I can keep accumulating edits."
Never continue accumulating edits on a structurally inconsistent manuscript, rebuttal, or code path.