back
loading skill details...
Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: literature search -> research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise...
---
name: academic-pipeline
description: "Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: literature search -> research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> humanize -> finalize. Coordinates academic-search, deep-research, academic-paper, academic-paper-reviewer, and humanizer into a seamless 12-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, de-AI processing, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow."
metadata:
version: "3.5"
last_updated: "2026-05-13"
depends_on: "ima-skills, academic-search, deep-research, academic-paper, academic-paper-reviewer, humanizer, humanizer-zh"
status: active
related_skills:
- ima-skills
- academic-search
- deep-research
- academic-paper
- academic-paper-reviewer
- humanizer
- humanizer-zh
---
# Academic Pipeline v3.5 — Full Academic Research Workflow Orchestrator
A lightweight orchestrator that manages the complete academic pipeline from research exploration to final manuscript. It does not perform substantive work — it only detects stages, recommends modes, dispatches skills, manages transitions, and tracks state.
**v2.0 Core Improvements**:
1. **Mandatory user confirmation checkpoints** — Each stage completion requires user confirmation before proceeding to the next step
2. **Academic integrity verification** — After paper completion and before review submission, 100% reference and data verification must pass
3. **Two-stage review** — First full review + post-revision focused verification review
4. **Final integrity check** — After revision completion, re-verify all citations and data are 100% correct
5. **Reproducible** — Standardized workflow producing consistent quality assurance each time
6. **Process documentation** — After pipeline completion, automatically generates a "Paper Creation Process Record" PDF documenting the human-AI collaboration history
## Quick Start
**Full workflow (from scratch):**
```
I want to write a research paper on the impact of AI on higher education quality assurance
```
--> academic-pipeline launches, starting from Stage 2 (RESEARCH)
**Mid-entry (existing paper):**
```
I already have a paper, help me review it
```
--> academic-pipeline detects mid-entry, starting from Stage 4 (INTEGRITY)
**Revision mode (received reviewer feedback):**
```
I received reviewer comments, help me revise
```
--> academic-pipeline detects, starting from Stage 7 (REVISE)
**Execution flow:**
1. Detect the user's current stage and available materials
2. Recommend the optimal mode for each stage
3. Dispatch the corresponding skill for each stage
4. **After each stage completion, proactively prompt and wait for user confirmation**
5. Track progress throughout; Pipeline Status Dashboard available at any time
---
## Trigger Conditions
### Trigger Keywords
**English**: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow
### Non-Trigger Scenarios
| Scenario | Skill to Use |
|----------|-------------|
| Only need to search materials or do a literature review | `deep-research` |
| Only need to write a paper (no research phase needed) | `academic-paper` |
| Only need to review a paper | `academic-paper-reviewer` |
| Only need to check citation format | `academic-paper` (citation-check mode) |
| Only need to convert paper format | `academic-paper` (format-convert mode) |
### Trigger Exclusions
- If the user only needs a single function (just search materials, just check citations), no pipeline is needed — directly trigger the corresponding skill
- If the user is already using a specific mode of a skill, do not force them into the pipeline
- The pipeline is optional, not mandatory
---
## Pipeline Stages (12 Stages)
| Stage | Name | Skill / Agent Called | Available Modes | Deliverables |
|-------|------|---------------------|----------------|-------------|
| **1** | **LITERATURE SEARCH** | **`academic-search`** | **multi-source, single-source, two-pass, query-expansion** | **Bibliography (BibTeX) + metadata (JSON) + CCF/venue level + optional PDFs** |
| 2 | RESEARCH | `deep-research` | socratic, full, quick | RQ Brief, Methodology, Bibliography, Synthesis |
| 3 | WRITE | `academic-paper` | plan, full | Paper Draft |
| **4** | **INTEGRITY** | **`integrity_verification_agent`** | **pre-review** | **Integrity verification report + corrected paper** |
| 5 | REVIEW | `academic-paper-reviewer` | full (incl. Devil's Advocate) | 5 review reports + Editorial Decision + Revision Roadmap |
| **6** | **RE-REVIEW** | **`academic-paper-reviewer`** | **re-review** | **Verification review report: revision response checklist + residual issues** |
| 7 | REVISE | `academic-paper` | revision | Revised Draft, Response to Reviewers |
| **8** | **RE-REVISE** | **`academic-paper`** | **revision** | **Second revised draft (if needed)** |
| **9** | **FINAL INTEGRITY** | **`integrity_verification_agent`** | **final-check** | **Final verification report (must achieve 100% pass to proceed)** |
| **10** | **HUMANIZE** | **`humanizer` + `humanizer-zh`** | **full (双语互补)** | **De-AI 化论文全文 + 双语变更摘要** |
| 11 | FINALIZE | `academic-paper` | format-convert | Final Paper (default MD + DOCX; ask about LaTeX; confirm correctness; PDF) |
| **12** | **PROCESS SUMMARY** | **orchestrator** | **auto** | **Paper creation process record MD + LaTeX to PDF (bilingual)** |
**Parallelization opportunity (v3.3)**: Within Stage 3, the `academic-paper` skill's Phase 1 (literature_strategist_agent) and the `visualization_agent` can operate in parallel after Phase 2 (structure_architect_agent) completes the outline. Specifically:
- Once the outline includes a visualization plan, `visualization_agent` can begin figure generation
- Simultaneously, `argument_builder_agent` can build CER chains
- `draft_writer_agent` waits for both to complete before beginning Phase 4
This mirrors PaperOrchestra's parallel execution of Plot Generation (Step 2) and Literature Review (Step 3) after Outline (Step 1), which reduces overall pipeline latency. The parallelization is optional — sequential execution remains the default for simplicity.
---
## Pipeline State Machine
1. **Stage 1 LITERATURE SEARCH** -> user confirmation -> Stage 2
2. **Stage 2 RESEARCH** -> user confirmation -> Stage 3
3. **Stage 3 WRITE** -> user confirmation -> Stage 4
4. **Stage 4 INTEGRITY** -> PASS -> Stage 5 (FAIL -> fix and re-verify, max 3 rounds)
5. **Stage 5 REVIEW** -> Accept -> Stage 9 / Minor|Major -> Stage 7 / Reject -> Stage 3 or end
6. **Stage 7 REVISE** -> user confirmation -> Stage 6
7. **Stage 6 RE-REVIEW** -> Accept|Minor -> Stage 9 / Major -> Stage 8
8. **Stage 8 RE-REVISE** -> user confirmation -> Stage 9 (no return to review)
9. **Stage 9 FINAL INTEGRITY** -> PASS (zero issues) -> Stage 10 (FAIL -> fix and re-verify)
10. **Stage 10 HUMANIZE** -> user confirmation -> Stage 11
11. **Stage 11 FINALIZE** -> MD + DOCX -> ask about LaTeX -> confirm -> PDF -> Stage 12
12. **Stage 12 PROCESS SUMMARY** -> ask language version -> generate process record MD -> LaTeX -> PDF -> end
See `references/pipeline_state_machine.md` for complete state transition definitions.
---
## Adaptive Checkpoint System
⚠️ **IRON RULE — Core rule: After each stage completion, the system must proactively prompt the user and wait for confirmation. The checkpoint presentation adapts based on context and user engagement.**
### Checkpoint Types
| Type | When Used | Content |
|------|-----------|---------|
| FULL | First checkpoint; after integrity boundaries; before finalization | Full deliverables list + decision dashboard + all options |
| SLIM | After 2+ consecutive "continue" responses on non-critical stages | One-line status + auto-continue in 5 seconds |
| MANDATORY | Integrity FAIL; Review decision; Stage 11 | Cannot be skipped; requires explicit user input |
### Decision Dashboard (shown at FULL checkpoints)
```
━━━ Stage [X] [Name] Complete ━━━
Metrics:
- Word count: [N] (target: [T] +/-10%) [OK/OVER/UNDER]
- References: [N] (min: [M]) [OK/LOW]
- Coverage: [N]/[T] sections drafted [COMPLETE/PARTIAL]
- Quality indicators: [score if available]
Deliverables:
- [Material 1]
- [Material 2]
Flagged: [any issues detected, or "None"]
Ready to proceed to Stage [Y]? You can also:
1. View progress (say "status")
2. Adjust settings
3. Pause pipeline
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
```
### Adaptive Rules
1. **First checkpoint**: always FULL
2. **After 2+ consecutive "continue" without review**: prompt user awareness ("You've auto-continued [N] times. Want to review progress?")
3. **Integrity boundaries (Stage 4, 9)**: always MANDATORY
4. **Review decisions (Stage 5, 6')**: always MANDATORY
5. **Before finalization (Stage 11)**: always MANDATORY
6. **All other stages**: start FULL, downgrade to SLIM if user says "just continue"
### Checkpoint Rules
1. ⚠️ **IRON RULE**: **Cannot auto-skip MANDATORY checkpoints**: Even if the previous stage result is perfect, explicit user input is required at MANDATORY checkpoints
2. **User can adjust**: At FULL and MANDATORY checkpoints, users can modify the mode or settings for the next step
3. **Pause-friendly**: Users can pause at any checkpoint and resume later
4. **SLIM mode**: If the user says "just continue" or "fully automatic," subsequent non-critical checkpoints switch to SLIM format (one-line status + auto-continue), but notifications are still sent
5. **Awareness guard**: After 4+ consecutive auto-continues, the system inserts a FULL checkpoint regardless of stage type to ensure user remains engaged
### Self-Check Questions (at every FULL checkpoint)
Before presenting the checkpoint to the user, the orchestrator asks itself:
1. **Citation integrity**: Are there any unverified citations in the latest output?
2. **Sycophantic concession**: Did the latest stage uncritically accept all feedback without pushback?
3. **Quality trajectory**: Is the latest output ≥ the quality of the previous stage? If declining, PAUSE and flag.
4. **Scope discipline**: Did the latest stage add content not requested by the user or the revision roadmap?
5. **Completeness**: Are all required deliverables for this stage present?
If ANY answer raises concern, include it in the checkpoint presentation to the user.
---
## Agent Team (3 Agents)
| # | Agent | Role | File |
|---|-------|------|------|
| 1 | `pipeline_orchestrator_agent` | Main orchestrator: detects stage, recommends mode, triggers skill, manages transitions | `agents/pipeline_orchestrator_agent.md` |
| 2 | `state_tracker_agent` | State tracker: records completed stages, produced materials, revision loop count | `agents/state_tracker_agent.md` |
| 3 | `integrity_verification_agent` | Integrity verifier: 100% reference/citation/data verification | `agents/integrity_verification_agent.md` |
---
## Orchestrator Workflow
### Step 1: INTAKE & DETECTION
```
pipeline_orchestrator_agent analyzes the user's input:
1. What materials does the user have?
- No materials --> Stage 2 (RESEARCH)
- Has research data --> Stage 3 (WRITE)
- Has paper draft --> Stage 4 (INTEGRITY)
- Has verified paper --> Stage 5 (REVIEW)
- Has review comments --> Stage 7 (REVISE)
- Has revised draft --> Stage 6 (RE-REVIEW)
- Has final draft for formatting --> Stage 11 (FINALIZE)
2. What is the user's goal?
- Full workflow (research to publication)
- Partial workflow (only certain stages needed)
3. Determine entry point, confirm with user
```
### Step 2: MODE RECOMMENDATION
```
Based on entry point and user preferences, recommend modes for each stage:
User type determination:
- Novice / wants guidance --> socratic (Stage 2) + plan (Stage 3) + guided (Stage 5)
- Experienced / wants direct output --> full (Stage 2) + full (Stage 3) + full (Stage 5)
- Time-limited --> quick (Stage 2) + full (Stage 3) + quick (Stage 5)
Explain the differences between modes when recommending, letting the user choose
```
### Step 3: STAGE EXECUTION
```
Call the corresponding skill (does not do work itself, purely dispatching):
1. Inform the user which Stage is about to begin
2. Load the corresponding skill's SKILL.md
3. Launch the skill with the recommended mode
4. Monitor stage completion status
After completion:
1. Compile deliverables list
2. Update pipeline state (call state_tracker_agent)
3. [MANDATORY] Proactively prompt checkpoint, wait for user confirmation
```
### Step 4: TRANSITION
```
After user confirmation:
1. Pass the previous stage's deliverables as input to the next stage
2. Trigger handoff protocol (defined in each skill's SKILL.md):
- Stage 2 --> 2: deep-research handoff (RQ Brief + Bibliography + Synthesis)
- Stage 3 --> 4: Pass complete paper to integrity_verification_agent
- Stage 4 --> 3: Pass verified paper to reviewer
- Stage 5 --> 4: Pass Revision Roadmap to academic-paper revision mode
- Stage 7 --> 6: Pass revised draft and Response to Reviewers to reviewer
- Stage 6 --> 8: Pass new Revision Roadmap + R&R Traceability Matrix (Schema 11) to academic-paper revision mode
- Stage 7/8 --> 9: Pass revision-completed paper to integrity_verification_agent (final verification)
- Stage 9 --> 5: Pass verified final draft to format-convert mode
3. Begin next stage
```
### Mid-Conversation Reinforcement Protocol
At every stage transition, the orchestrator MUST inject a brief core principles reminder. This prevents context rot in long conversations.
**Template** (adapt to the upcoming stage):
````
--- STAGE TRANSITION: [Current] → [Next] ---
🔄 Core Principles Reinforcement:
1. [Most relevant IRON RULE for the next stage]
2. [Most relevant Anti-Pattern to avoid in the next stage]
3. Quality check: Is the output of [Current Stage] at least as good as [Previous Stage]? If not, PAUSE.
Checkpoint: [MANDATORY/ADVISORY] — [What user needs to confirm]
---
````
**Stage-specific reinforcement content**: See `references/reinforcement_content.md` for the full transition → reinforcement focus table.
---
## Integrity Review Protocol
Stage 4 (pre-review) and Stage 9 (post-revision) verification. 5-phase protocol: references → citation context → statistical data → originality → claims.
⚠️ **IRON RULE**: Stage 9 must PASS with zero issues to proceed to Stage 11. Stage 9 verifies from scratch independently.
⚠️ **IRON RULE (v3.2)**: Both Stage 4 and Stage 9 must also run the **AI Research Failure Mode Checklist** — a 7-mode taxonomy extending the citation hallucination checks into implementation bugs, hallucinated results, shortcut reliance, bug-as-insight, methodology fabrication, and pipeline-level frame-lock. If any of the 7 modes is `SUSPECTED`, or if Modes 1/3/5/6 are `INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE`, the pipeline **blocks** and the user must acknowledge (confirm / override with reasoning / revise) before the pipeline proceeds. There is no `--no-block` escape hatch. Stage 12 PROCESS SUMMARY then reports the full failure-mode audit log as part of the AI Self-Reflection Report.
> See `references/integrity_review_protocol.md` for the 5-phase citation/claim verification procedures.
> See `references/ai_research_failure_modes.md` for the 7-mode AI research failure checklist and block/override logic.
---
## Two-Stage Review Protocol
Stage 5 (full review, 5 reviewers) → Revision Coaching → Stage 7 → Stage 6 (re-review) → optional Residual Coaching → Stage 8.
> See `references/two_stage_review_protocol.md` for detailed stage flows and coaching dialogue limits.
---
## Mid-Entry Protocol
Users can enter from any stage. The orchestrator will:
1. **Detect materials**: Analyze the content provided by the user to determine what is available
2. **Identify gaps**: Check what prerequisite materials are needed for the target stage
3. **Suggest backfilling**: If critical materials are missing, suggest whether to return to earlier stages
4. **Direct entry**: If materials are sufficient, directly start the specified stage
**Important: mid-entry cannot skip Stage 4**
- If the user brings a paper and enters directly, go through Stage 4 (INTEGRITY) first before Stage 5 (REVIEW)
- Only exception: User can provide a previous integrity verification report and content has not been modified
---
## External Review Protocol
Handles external (human) reviewer feedback integration. 4-step workflow: Intake & Structuring → Strategic Revision Coaching → Revision & Response → Self-Verification.
> See `references/external_review_protocol.md` for the complete 4-step workflow, coaching dialogue patterns, and capability boundaries.
---
## Progress Dashboard
ASCII dashboard shown at FULL checkpoints to display pipeline progress.
> See `references/progress_dashboard_template.md` for the dashboard template.
---
## Revision Loop Management
- Stage 5 (first review) -> Stage 7 (revision) -> Stage 6 (verification review) -> Stage 8 (re-revision, if needed) -> Stage 9 (final verification)
- **Maximum 1 round of RE-REVISE** (Stage 8): If Stage 6 gives Major, enter Stage 8 for revision then proceed directly to Stage 9 (no return to review)
- **Pipeline overrides academic-paper's max 2 revision rule**: In the pipeline, revisions are limited to Stage 7 + Stage 8 (one round each), replacing academic-paper's max 2 rounds rule
- Mark unresolved issues as Acknowledged Limitations
- Provide cumulative revision history (each round's decision, items addressed, unresolved items)
### Early-Stopping Criterion (v3.2)
At the end of each revision round, if **delta < 3 points** on the 0-100 rubric AND **no P0 issues remain**, suggest stopping the revision loop ("converged"). User can override. Hard cap: 2 full revision loops (Stage 7 + Stage 8).
### Budget Transparency (v3.2)
At pipeline start, estimate token cost based on paper length, mode, and cross-model toggle. Present estimate and ask for user confirmation before Stage 2 begins.
---
## Reproducibility
Every pipeline artifact is versioned, hashed, and auditable.
> See `references/reproducibility_audit.md` for standardized workflow guarantees, audit trail format, and artifact tracking.
---
## Stage 12: Process Summary Protocol
Produces the final process record: paper creation journey, collaboration quality evaluation (6 dimensions, 1-100), and AI self-reflection report.
> See `references/process_summary_protocol.md` for full workflow, required content structure, scoring dimensions, and output specifications.
---
## Anti-Patterns
Explicit prohibitions to prevent common failure modes:
| # | Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Correct Behavior |
|---|-------------|-------------|-----------------|
| 1 | **Skipping integrity checks** | "The paper looks fine, skip Stage 4, 9" | Integrity checks are MANDATORY; they cannot be auto-skipped regardless of perceived quality |
| 2 | **Orchestrator doing substantive work** | Pipeline orchestrator writes content or reviews the paper | Orchestrator only dispatches and coordinates; substantive work belongs to the sub-skills |
| 3 | **Auto-advancing past MANDATORY checkpoints** | Moving to next stage without user confirmation at FULL checkpoints | MANDATORY checkpoints require explicit user input before proceeding |
| 4 | **Quality degradation across stages** | Stage 7 revision is worse than Stage 3 draft because context window is exhausted | If Stage N output quality < Stage N-1, PAUSE and reload core principles before continuing |
| 5 | **Silently dropping reviewer concerns** | Revision addresses 8 of 10 concerns and hopes nobody notices | The R&R tracking table must account for every concern with explicit status |
| 6 | **Re-verifying only known issues at Stage 9** | Final integrity check only re-checks Stage 4 findings | Stage 9 must verify from scratch independently; revision may introduce new issues |
| 7 | **Inflating Collaboration Quality scores** | Giving 90/100 to avoid awkward self-criticism | Honesty first: no inflation, no pleasantries; cite specific evidence for every score |
| 8 | **Bypassing the Failure Mode Checklist block** (v3.2) | "The 7-mode checklist is new, let's skip it this run" | Stage 4, 9 Failure Mode Checklist is MANDATORY and BLOCKING; no `--no-block` flag exists; overrides require user reasoning recorded for Stage 12 |
---
## Quality Standards
| Dimension | Requirement |
|-----------|------------|
| Stage detection | Correctly identify user's current stage and available materials |
| Mode recommendation | Recommend appropriate mode based on user preferences and material status |
| Material handoff | Stage-to-stage handoff materials are complete and correctly formatted |
| State tracking | Pipeline state updated in real time; Progress Dashboard accurate |
| **Mandatory checkpoint** | **User confirmation required after each stage completion** |
| **Mandatory integrity check** | **Stage 4 and 9 cannot be skipped, must PASS** |
| **Mandatory failure mode checklist** (v3.2) | **Stage 4 and 9 must run the 7-mode AI research failure checklist; suspected failures block; overrides require user reasoning** |
| No overstepping | ⚠️ IRON RULE: Orchestrator does not perform substantive research/writing/reviewing, only dispatching |
| No forcing | ⚠️ IRON RULE: User can pause or exit pipeline at any time (but cannot skip integrity checks) |
| Reproducible | Same input follows the same workflow across different sessions |
| **Convergence-aware stopping** (v3.2) | **If delta < 3 points AND no P0 issues, suggest stopping revision loop; user can override** |
| **Budget transparency** (v3.2) | **Token cost estimate + user confirmation at pipeline start** |
---
## Error Recovery
| Stage | Error | Handling |
|-------|-------|---------|
| Intake | Cannot determine entry point | Ask user what materials they have and their goal |
| Stage 2 | deep-research not converging | Suggest mode switch (socratic -> full) or narrow scope |
| Stage 3 | Missing research foundation | Suggest returning to Stage 2 to supplement research |
| Stage 4 | Still FAIL after 3 correction rounds | List unverifiable items; user decides whether to continue |
| Stage 5 | Review result is Reject | Provide options: major restructuring (Stage 3) or abandon |
| Stage 7 | Revision incomplete on all items | List unaddressed items; ask whether to continue |
| Stage 6 | Verification still has major issues | Enter Stage 8 for final revision |
| Stage 8 | Issues remain after revision | Mark as Acknowledged Limitations; proceed to Stage 9 |
| Stage 9 | Final verification FAIL | Fix and re-verify (max 3 rounds) |
| Any | User leaves midway | Save pipeline state; can resume from breakpoint next time |
| Any | Skill execution failure | Report error; suggest retry or skip |
---
## Agent File References
| Agent | Definition File |
|-------|----------------|
| pipeline_orchestrator_agent | `agents/pipeline_orchestrator_agent.md` |
| state_tracker_agent | `agents/state_tracker_agent.md` |
| integrity_verification_agent | `agents/integrity_verification_agent.md` |
---
## Reference Files
| Reference | Purpose |
|-----------|---------|
| `references/pipeline_state_machine.md` | Complete state machine definition: all legal transitions, preconditions, actions |
| `references/plagiarism_detection_protocol.md` | Phase D originality verification protocol + self-plagiarism + AI text characteristics |
| `references/mode_advisor.md` | Unified cross-skill decision tree: maps user intent to optimal skill + mode |
| `references/claim_verification_protocol.md` | Phase E claim verification protocol: claim extraction, source tracing, cross-referencing, verdict taxonomy |
| `references/ai_research_failure_modes.md` | 7-mode AI research failure checklist (Lu 2026), run at Stage 4 + 9 with blocking behaviour, reported at Stage 12 |
| `references/team_collaboration_protocol.md` | Multi-person team coordination: role definitions, handoff protocol, version control, conflict resolution |
| `references/integrity_review_protocol.md` | Stage 4 + 9 integrity verification: 5-phase protocol details |
| `references/two_stage_review_protocol.md` | Two-stage review: Stage 5 full review + Stage 6 verification review |
| `references/external_review_protocol.md` | External (human) reviewer feedback: 4-step intake/coaching/revision/verification |
| `references/process_summary_protocol.md` | Stage 12: collaboration quality evaluation + AI self-reflection report |
| `references/reproducibility_audit.md` | Standardized workflow guarantees + audit trail format |
| `references/progress_dashboard_template.md` | ASCII progress dashboard template |
| `references/reinforcement_content.md` | Stage-specific reinforcement focus table for transitions |
| `references/changelog.md` | Full version history |
| `shared/handoff_schemas.md` | Cross-skill data contracts: 9 schemas for all inter-stage handoff artifacts |
---
## Templates
| Template | Purpose |
|----------|---------|
| `templates/pipeline_status_template.md` | Progress Dashboard output template |
---
## Examples
| Example | Demonstrates |
|---------|-------------|
| `examples/full_pipeline_example.md` | Complete pipeline conversation log (Stage 2-5, with integrity + 2-stage review) |
| `examples/mid_entry_example.md` | Mid-entry example starting from Stage 4 (existing paper -> integrity check -> review -> revision -> finalization) |
---
## Output Language
Follows user language. Academic terminology retained in English.
---
## Integration with Other Skills
```
academic-pipeline dispatches the following skills (does not do work itself):
Stage 2: deep-research
- socratic mode: Guided research exploration
- full mode: Complete research report
- quick mode: Quick research summary
Stage 3: academic-paper
- plan mode: Socratic chapter-by-chapter guidance
- full mode: Complete paper writing
Stage 4: integrity_verification_agent (Mode 1: pre-review)
Stage 9: integrity_verification_agent (Mode 2: final-check)
Stage 5: academic-paper-reviewer
- full mode: Complete 5-person review (EIC + R1/R2/R3 + Devil's Advocate)
Stage 6: academic-paper-reviewer
- re-review mode: Verification review (focused on revision responses)
Stage 7/8: academic-paper (revision mode)
Stage 11: academic-paper (format-convert mode)
- Step 1: Ask user which academic formatting style (APA 7.0 / Chicago / IEEE, etc.)
- Step 2: Auto-produce MD + DOCX
- Step 3: Produce LaTeX (using corresponding document class, e.g., apa7 class for APA 7.0)
- Step 4: After user confirms content is correct, tectonic compiles PDF (final version)
- Fonts: Times New Roman (English) + Source Han Serif TC VF (Chinese) + Courier New (monospace)
- ⚠️ IRON RULE: PDF must be compiled from LaTeX (HTML-to-PDF is prohibited)
```
---
## Related Skills
| Skill | Relationship |
|-------|-------------|
| `deep-research` | Dispatched (Stage 2 research phase) |
| `academic-paper` | Dispatched (Stage 3 writing, Stage 7/8 revision, Stage 11 formatting) |
| `academic-paper-reviewer` | Dispatched (Stage 5 first review, Stage 6 verification review) |
---
## Version Info
| Item | Content |
|------|---------|
| Skill Version | 3.2 |
| Last Updated | 2026-04-09 |
| Maintainer | Cheng-I Wu |
| Dependent Skills | deep-research v2.0+, academic-paper v2.0+, academic-paper-reviewer v1.1+ |
| Role | Full academic research workflow orchestrator |
---
## Changelog
> See `references/changelog.md` for full version history.
don't have the plugin yet? install it then click "run inline in claude" again.