mirror of
https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills.git
synced 2026-10-02 07:14:34 +08:00
Edward Cheng-I WuandClaude Opus 5.5
a3f65690a9
Once the review decision is final, the dispatching session runs scripts/check_acronyms.py on the reviewed manuscript and appends the printed report, unchanged, as the Editorial Decision Letter's last section, "Attachment: Acronym Check (advisory, #849)". The append is the letter's last write, so no call that writes that round's decision, roadmap, or letter sees the report. Later readers, such as a re-review or the revision coach, see it but take no weakness, consensus item, revision, or roadmap entry from it. academic-paper-reviewer/SKILL.md holds the rule. The decision template, sprint_contract_protocol.md §8.1, re_review_mode_protocol.md, revision_coach_agent.md, writing_quality_check.md § F, and the degradation registry follow it. Tests show that check_panel_synthesis.py and the re-review letter parser read a letter with the attachment as before. No model run tested the caller flow. Proposed by @reiropke in #848; the first PR was #904. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>