Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/64fe5c43fd3731a0.
--- 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. ## 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. | | 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. ## 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.