mumdark/nature-review-studio/skill

Nature Review Studio

V1.4.0: full 1287-case knowledge base, simplified Word styling, and a locked two-file output contract.

Interfaces

Locked output contract

For review and respond, create exactly two synchronized user-facing files:

• build/output/<entry>_<case>_<YYYYMMDD>.docx: formal Word deliverable.
• build/output/<entry>_<case>_<YYYYMMDD>.md: clean Markdown companion.
• The two files must use the same language, section order, reviewer numbering,

concerns, consensus content, and revision task table.

• Do not create separate preamble, compliance, claim–evidence, coverage,

adversarial-check, divergence, severity-change, or editor-decision files.

• Markdown output is mandatory. Do not expose or use a --no-md mode.

Formal content order

1. Editor letter and revision-level banner.
2. Each reviewer in Overall assessment followed by numbered Major concerns

and Minor concerns.

1. Cross-review consensus, without divergence or editor-decision hints.
2. Revision task table.

Internal compliance checks, source coverage, claim–evidence mapping, and adversarial review remain silent and are never inserted into either deliverable.

Language

Use the language of the user's request unless the user explicitly requests a different output language. Chinese requests return Chinese DOCX and Markdown; English requests return English DOCX and Markdown.

Rendering

Use nature_open_peer_review/build/pipeline/render_review_docx.py. It writes the DOCX and the mandatory same-stem Markdown companion in one invocation. Report both absolute paths to the user after successful generation.

Word styling follows the current V1.4 renderer: system-default fonts, black text, no forced hyperlink decoration, and bold limited to headings, table headers, confidence lines, task IDs, and evidence anchors.

Knowledge use

• review: retrieve concern axes, method checks, severity priors, reviewer-set

patterns, and structurally similar historical cases.

• respond: retrieve response strategies, action statuses, resolution patterns,

and second-round follow-up risks.

• Never copy historical reviewer sentences verbatim or expose case identities.

Read the references for workflow details and silent quality-control rules.