git:20260712.f1a3b00 to git:20260827.b2a4a9b

- description: 论文主线与叙事结构审查器。完整 cold-read 论文，建立 contribution graph、claim dependencies、section functions 和读者困惑点；用 SCIPAPER_STANDARD 的 typed feedback 区分科学/论证 blocker、strong narrative advisory 与 ordinary editorial advisory。支持多个明确相关的贡献，不预设所有论文只能有一条线；保留隔离上下文可读性验证和发散方向收敛。Use when 用户说主线不清、叙事乱、章节衔接有问题、mainline、整合 brainstorm 输出或做 spine-level review。

- argument-hint: "<file_path> [--max-iter N] [--no-fix] [--skip-isolated-readability] [--orchestrator-isolated] [--from-brainstorm <shortlist>] [--field <name>]"

- # mainline — contribution-graph and cold-read feedback

-

- > **Normative authority:** `docs/SCIPAPER_STANDARD.md`.

- > `paper-review` verifies per-claim scientific correctness; this skill examines how

- > those claims are organized and understood. It does not define a separate paper

- > PASS/FAIL or require every editorial preference to disappear.

-

- Workflow:

-

- read → map contribution graph → collect cold-read evidence → type/rank findings →

- edit → re-read → disposition

-

- ## 0. Hard rules

-

- 1. **Read the complete current manuscript.** Mainline is a global property; grep and

- abstract-only sampling cannot establish it.

- 2. **Do not rely on memory.** Reconstruct claims, dependencies and section functions

- from the current file and cited evidence each round.

- 3. **Do not guess the intended spine.** If a contribution or dependency cannot be

- inferred, record the ambiguity and its location.

- 4. **Do not bridge logical gaps with connectors.** `Furthermore`, `Moreover`,

- `Additionally` and similar transitions cannot replace a missing premise, broken

- dependency or wrong section order.

- 5. **Multiple contributions are legitimate.** A paper may contain several contributions

- when their relationship, shared question and evidence dependencies are explicit.

- Disconnected components are evidence to investigate, not an automatic fatal verdict.

- 6. **Cold-reader confusion is evidence.** It must be classified by consequence and

- addressed or dispositioned; it is not automatically an integrity blocker.

- 7. **Scientific fidelity is eligibility for edits.** Narrative changes may not alter

- numbers, units, citations, mathematics, entities, comparison direction, negation,

- causal direction, scope or stance.

- 8. **Use unified findings.** Missing required argument or claim/evidence contradiction

- may be `integrity_blocker`; L0 rules remain `l0_target`; narrative and structure

- findings are generally advisories.

- 9. **No universal zero-advisory convergence.** Strong advisories require a disposition;

- ordinary advisories remain visible without blocking workflow completion.

-

- ## 1. Preparation and maps

-

- 1. Read `docs/SCIPAPER_STANDARD.md`, `/sci-paper:paper`, and the target manuscript.

- 2. Resolve optional field evidence. Missing dossier/baseline is `unmeasured`, not clean.

- 3. If `--from-brainstorm` is supplied, read the shortlist as provenance for candidate

- directions, not as an obligation to include all of them.

- 4. Build a **paper-level purpose record** with source locations:

- - `root_question`;

- - `contributions[]`;

- - `method_or_argument` for each contribution;

- - `key_evidence[]`;

- - `take_home` and scope.

- 5. Build a three-level outline:

- - section title and function;

- - paragraph claim/topic;

- - claim → evidence/derivation/dependency pointers.

- 6. Build a contribution graph:

- - nodes: claims, definitions, methods, evidence and conclusions;

- - directed edges: prerequisite, supports, qualifies, contrasts, derives-from;

- - named contribution subgraphs;

- - explicit relations among subgraphs and the shared root question.

- 7. Record disconnected nodes/components, but do not classify them until their scientific

- or rhetorical role is read in context.

- 8. Run the shared de-AI report when available:

-

- ```bash

- python tools/ai_ism_lint.py <file> --field <field> \

- --structure --distribution --document-structure --oracle --voice \

- --format json --output <scratch>/mainline-feedback.json

- ```

-

- Structural and learned signals are advisory evidence and retain their measurement state.

-

- ## 2. Positive review lenses

-

- ### A1. Purpose and contribution clarity

-

- - Can a cold reader state the root question without importing project context?

- - Is each contribution stated at the strength and scope supported by its evidence?

- - Are the contributions related explicitly rather than merely placed in one list?

- - Do abstract, introduction and conclusion describe the same contribution set?

-

- A missing or contradictory central scientific claim can be an `integrity_blocker`.

- A contribution that is real but hard to infer is normally a strong advisory.

-

- ### A2. Information economy

-

- - Does each paragraph add a claim, definition, evidence, qualification or necessary link?

- - Are repeated explanations, nominalizations and low-information modifiers removable?

- - Can a passage be compressed without losing scientific content?

-

- Compression is advisory unless duplication creates conflicting versions or stale science.

- Do not impose a fixed percentage reduction on every paragraph.

-

- ### A3. Narrative architecture

-

- - Does section order follow scientific and logical dependencies?

- - Does each section have a recognizable function?

- - Are result, interpretation and limitation located where readers can connect them?

- - Does the architecture fit the paper genre rather than a mandatory three-act template?

-

- ### A4. Reader orientation

-

- - Are definitions introduced before use?

- - Do transitions name the actual dependency, object, equation or result?

- - Are cross-references specific and correct?

- - Can a reader resume after a section break without reconstructing hidden context?

-

- ### A5. Derivation completeness

-

- - Are assumptions and symbols available before each derivation?

- - Is every important inferential jump explained or delegated to a valid appendix/reference?

- - Does the prose distinguish algebraic consequence, physical interpretation and empirical

- observation?

-

- Correctness belongs to `paper-review`; missing steps that make a core conclusion unsupported

- may still be an `integrity_blocker` here.

-

- ### A6. Logical sufficiency

-

- - Do conclusions follow from the stated premises and evidence?

- - Are causal, necessary/sufficient and generalization claims justified?

- - Are limitations propagated to the take-home message?

-

- ### A7. Contribution chaining

-

- - For each contribution, is the chain question → method/argument → evidence → conclusion

- complete?

- - If there are several contributions, is their relation explicit: shared method, staged

- dependency, common dataset, theorem-to-application, or coordinated answer to the root

- question?

- - Are orphan claims genuine supporting material, misplaced content, or a separate paper?

-

- A graph with multiple components is not automatically wrong. It becomes a blocker only if

- required logical support is absent or the manuscript asserts a unity that the evidence

- contradicts. Otherwise it is a ranked narrative advisory.

-

- ## 3. Negative review lenses

-

- ### B1. Undefined or circular concepts

-

- Locate undefined terms, circular definitions, overloaded symbols and vague operational

- language. Semantic conflict is a blocker; clear-but-improvable wording is advisory.

-

- ### B2. Unexplained contribution fragmentation

-

- Look for contributions that share no stated question, dependency, method or implication.

- Recommend one of:

-

- - explain the true relation;

- - subordinate a supporting result;

- - move a tangential result to a justified location;

- - remove it;

- - propose a separate paper, but do not delete scientific content without author approval.

-

- Do not force a single thread merely because the graph has more than one component.

-

- ### B3. Breadth without development

-

- Find method variants not used, related-work catalogues without synthesis, repeated claims,

- and sections that open directions without evidence or closure. Type by consequence rather

- than calling every instance fatal.

-

- ### B4. Broken section dependencies

-

- Find sections whose inputs were not introduced, results with no method, discussion claims

- with no result, and conclusions with no supporting chain. A missing required dependency is a

- blocker; a weak transition is advisory.

-

- ### B5. Ambiguous architecture

-

- Check excessive nesting, headings that hide section function, mixed method/result/discussion

- responsibilities and sequences that violate dependency order. Genre and journal conventions

- matter; there is no fixed maximum valid subsection count.

-

- ### B6. Missing scientific narrative

-

- Find activity logs (`we did X, then Y`) without question or interpretation, result lists with

- no implication, and motivation that does not connect to the contribution. Add only

- source-supported interpretation; never invent significance.

-

- ### B7. Context drift

-

- Check terminology, symbols, assumptions, sample definitions, scope and contribution labels

- across sections. Scientific conflict is a blocker; alias inconsistency is advisory.

-

- ### B8. Low-information language

-

- Use search only to locate candidates such as vague quantifiers, unsupported evaluative

- adjectives and empty nouns. Read each in context:

-

- - retain measured or technically defined language;

- - replace unsupported evaluation with verified quantities when sources exist;

- - delete padding;

- - keep necessary uncertainty rather than fabricating precision.

- A word match alone is not a finding. Tier A/Tier B/em-dash consequences come from the shared

- L0 policy, while ordinary vagueness is advisory unless it changes claim validity.

- ## 4. Brainstorm convergence

- Run whether or not a shortlist was supplied:

- 1. Enumerate candidate directions actually present in the manuscript.

- 2. Distinguish:

- - separate contributions coordinated by the paper's root question;

- - supporting analyses;

- - speculative discussion;

- - process artifacts or abandoned directions.

- 3. For each direction, record evidence, dependency and reader payoff.

- 4. Recommend concentration only where a direction is unsupported, distracts from the stated

- scope, duplicates another claim or belongs in another work.

- 5. Do not hide discarded directions under generic `future work`; retain an open question only

- when it is scientifically motivated by current evidence.

- 6. After restructuring, re-check abstract/introduction/conclusion and scientific fidelity.

- ## 5. Isolated cold-read verification

- Use exactly one of these execution paths:

- - standalone invocation: unless `--skip-isolated-readability` is explicitly supplied, launch a

- fresh isolated worktree reader after the in-process graph is stable;

- - parent-orchestrated invocation: with `--orchestrator-isolated`, the current process is already

- the fresh isolated worktree reader, so it performs the questionnaire itself and must not spawn

- a nested agent;

- - explicit user skip: `--skip-isolated-readability` leaves this axis `unmeasured`.

- The selected reader must read the current manuscript from start to finish without prior

- summaries and answer with file:line evidence:

- 1. What is the root question?

- 2. What contributions does the paper make?

- 3. How are those contributions related?

- 4. What method or argument supports each contribution?

- 5. What is the key evidence for each?

- 6. What is the take-home message and scope?

- 7. Where did the reader need to backtrack, infer missing context, or choose between competing

- interpretations?

- The isolated reader does **not** need to answer “single thread”. Multiple contributions are

- acceptable if the reader can state their relation. Each confusion is converted to a typed

- finding:

- - contradiction or missing required support → `integrity_blocker`;

- - high-exposure, reproducible confusion with a concrete repair → strong advisory;

- - local wording preference → ordinary advisory;

- - false inference unsupported by the text → `rejected_as_false_positive` with explanation.

- Agent failure or an explicit skip is reported as `unmeasured`, never as a clean result.

- ## 6. Fix and re-measure

- Default behavior fixes authorized manuscript content; `--no-fix` reports only.

- 1. Rank findings by the unified standard.

- 2. Resolve integrity blockers before narrative polish.

- 3. Remove L0 targets without introducing semantic drift.

- 4. Apply the minimum structural edit that repairs a strong advisory.

- 5. Preserve numbers, units, citations, math, acronyms, entities, comparison/causal direction,

- negation, scope, stance and logical dependencies.

- 6. Re-read the modified section and all dependent abstract/conclusion passages.

- 7. Rebuild the affected contribution graph and rerun the shared feedback report.

- 8. Re-run `paper-review` after any substantive claim or derivation change.

- Do not fix broken logic with a transition phrase, decorate weak structure with adjectives, or

- turn every multi-contribution paper into one artificial list.

- ## 7. Stopping rule

- Stop as `DISPOSITION_COMPLETE` when:

- - all narrative-related integrity blockers are resolved or verified false positives;

- - applicable L0 targets are zero;

- - every strong narrative advisory is acted, accepted, rejected as false positive, or pending

- with a stated reason;

- - ordinary advisories and unavailable axes are reported;

- - isolated cold-read evidence is incorporated or explicitly unavailable;

- - all edits preserve scientific fidelity.

- If `--max-iter` is reached, return `BREAK_WITH_USER_DECISION` with unresolved findings. Do not

- increase the budget silently and do not issue a universal paper-quality verdict.

- ## 8. Report contract

- # Mainline — Typed Feedback Report

- Target: <file> | Field: <field or none> | Workflow state: <state>

-

- ## Purpose and contribution record

- - root question: ... (file:line)

- - contributions: ... (file:line)

- - contribution relations: ...

- - key evidence: ...

- - take-home and scope: ...

- ## Contribution graph

- - nodes/edges/components

- - component roles and explicit relations

- - orphan or ambiguous nodes

- ## Measurement state

- | axis | status | provenance / limitation |

- ## Ranked findings

- | id | kind | layer | rule | location | evidence | action | disposition |

- ## Cold-read evidence

- <answers 1–7 and typed confusion findings>

- ## Residual feedback

- - pending strong advisories

- - ordinary advisories

- - degraded/unmeasured axes

- - author decisions required

- Do not emit PASS/FAIL rows or claim that zero L0 targets proves a coherent manuscript.

-

- ## 9. Interfaces

-

- - `/sci-paper:paper`: writing and L0 guidance.

- - `/sci-paper:paper-review`: scientific integrity and source tracing.

- - `/sci-paper:paper-style`: descriptive corpus evidence.

- - `/sci-paper:rewrite-in-voice`: claim-first paragraph reconstruction.

- - `/sci-paper:brainstorm`: candidate direction provenance.

- - `/sci-paper:final-review`: isolated multi-review orchestration.

- ## 10. Anti-patterns

- - Inferring the spine from keywords or the abstract alone.

- - Treating component count greater than one as automatic failure.

- - Forcing every paper into problem → gap → method → result → implication.

- - Dismissing cold-reader confusion because the subject is technical.

- - Requiring every editorial advisory to disappear.

- - Using learned field-similarity as authorship evidence.

- - Replacing necessary uncertainty with invented numbers.

- - Deleting a valid secondary contribution without author review.

- - Calling an advisory-only report a failed paper.