@bluefly/openstandardagents 0.2.7 → 0.2.9

package/website/content/docs/use-cases/research-multi-agent.md

@@ -1,1161 +0,0 @@
-# Research Multi-Agent Debate System
-
-## Problem Statement
-
-Academic and corporate research teams face challenges in literature review and peer review:
-- **Confirmation bias**: Single researchers miss contradictory evidence
-- **Shallow analysis**: Time pressure leads to cursory paper reviews
-- **Limited perspectives**: Reviewers bring only their domain expertise
-- **Scalability**: Cannot review hundreds of papers in emerging fields
-- **Reproducibility**: Manual reviews aren't systematic or reproducible
-- **Quality variance**: Different reviewers apply different standards
-
-**Solution**: A multi-agent OSSA system where specialized AI agents debate research papers from different perspectives (methodology, novelty, reproducibility, impact), forcing rigorous analysis through adversarial collaboration and structured argumentation.
-
-## Architecture Overview
-
-```mermaid
-graph TB
-    subgraph "Input"
-        Paper[Research Paper PDF]
-        Metadata[Paper Metadata]
-    end
-
-    subgraph "Orchestrator Agent"
-        Coord[Debate Coordinator]
-        Moderator[Debate Moderator]
-    end
-
-    subgraph "Specialist Agents"
-        Method[Methodology Critic]
-        Novel[Novelty Assessor]
-        Repro[Reproducibility Checker]
-        Impact[Impact Evaluator]
-        Ethics[Ethics Reviewer]
-    end
-
-    subgraph "Debate Process"
-        Round1[Round 1: Initial Positions]
-        Round2[Round 2: Rebuttals]
-        Round3[Round 3: Evidence]
-        Round4[Round 4: Consensus]
-    end
-
-    subgraph "Knowledge Base"
-        ArXiv[ArXiv Index]
-        PubMed[PubMed Index]
-        Citations[Citation Graph]
-        Code[Code Repositories]
-    end
-
-    subgraph "Outputs"
-        Summary[Executive Summary]
-        Scores[Multi-dimensional Scores]
-        Report[Detailed Review Report]
-        Recommend[Accept/Revise/Reject]
-    end
-
-    Paper --> Coord
-    Metadata --> Coord
-
-    Coord --> Method
-    Coord --> Novel
-    Coord --> Repro
-    Coord --> Impact
-    Coord --> Ethics
-
-    Method --> Round1
-    Novel --> Round1
-    Repro --> Round1
-    Impact --> Round1
-    Ethics --> Round1
-
-    Round1 --> Moderator
-    Moderator --> Round2
-    Round2 --> Moderator
-    Moderator --> Round3
-    Round3 --> Moderator
-    Moderator --> Round4
-
-    Method -.->|Search| ArXiv
-    Novel -.->|Search| PubMed
-    Repro -.->|Check| Code
-    Impact -.->|Analyze| Citations
-
-    Round4 --> Summary
-    Round4 --> Scores
-    Round4 --> Report
-    Round4 --> Recommend
-
-    style Coord fill:#e1f5ff
-    style Moderator fill:#ffe1f5
-    style Round4 fill:#e1ffe1
-    style Recommend fill:#ffe1e1
-```
-
-## OSSA Manifests
-
-### Orchestrator Agent
-
-```yaml
-apiVersion: ossa/v0.2.x
-kind: Agent
-metadata:
-  name: research-debate-orchestrator
-  namespace: research
-  labels:
-    app: research-review
-    tier: orchestration
-    role: coordinator
-  annotations:
-    research.ossa.io/debate-rounds: "4"
-    research.ossa.io/min-agents: "3"
-    research.ossa.io/max-debate-duration: "3600"
-
-spec:
-  type: orchestrator
-  description: |
-    Orchestrates multi-agent debate system for research paper review.
-    Coordinates specialist agents, moderates debate rounds, and
-    synthesizes consensus recommendations.
-
-  runtime:
-    type: docker
-    image: registry.example.com/agents/research-orchestrator:1.0.0
-    command: ["/app/orchestrator"]
-    resources:
-      limits:
-        cpu: "2000m"
-        memory: "4Gi"
-      requests:
-        cpu: "500m"
-        memory: "1Gi"
-
-  capabilities:
-    - name: orchestrate_review
-      description: |
-        Coordinate multi-agent debate for comprehensive paper review.
-      input_schema:
-        type: object
-        required: [paper_id, paper_url, title]
-        properties:
-          paper_id:
-            type: string
-            description: "Unique paper identifier (DOI, arXiv ID, etc.)"
-          paper_url:
-            type: string
-            format: uri
-            description: "URL to paper PDF"
-          title:
-            type: string
-          abstract:
-            type: string
-          authors:
-            type: array
-            items: {type: string}
-          venue:
-            type: string
-          year:
-            type: integer
-          field:
-            type: string
-            enum: [cs, bio, physics, medicine, social, interdisciplinary]
-          debate_config:
-            type: object
-            properties:
-              rounds:
-                type: integer
-                default: 4
-                minimum: 2
-                maximum: 10
-              time_limit_per_round:
-                type: integer
-                default: 300
-              require_consensus:
-                type: boolean
-                default: false
-      output_schema:
-        type: object
-        required: [review_id, recommendation, summary, scores]
-        properties:
-          review_id:
-            type: string
-            format: uuid
-          recommendation:
-            type: string
-            enum: [strong_accept, accept, weak_accept, borderline, weak_reject, reject, strong_reject]
-          confidence:
-            type: number
-            minimum: 0
-            maximum: 1
-          summary:
-            type: object
-            required: [strengths, weaknesses, key_findings]
-            properties:
-              strengths:
-                type: array
-                items: {type: string}
-              weaknesses:
-                type: array
-                items: {type: string}
-              key_findings:
-                type: array
-                items: {type: string}
-              controversial_points:
-                type: array
-                items: {type: string}
-          scores:
-            type: object
-            required: [methodology, novelty, reproducibility, impact, ethics]
-            properties:
-              methodology:
-                type: object
-                properties:
-                  score: {type: number, minimum: 1, maximum: 10}
-                  reasoning: {type: string}
-              novelty:
-                type: object
-                properties:
-                  score: {type: number, minimum: 1, maximum: 10}
-                  reasoning: {type: string}
-              reproducibility:
-                type: object
-                properties:
-                  score: {type: number, minimum: 1, maximum: 10}
-                  reasoning: {type: string}
-              impact:
-                type: object
-                properties:
-                  score: {type: number, minimum: 1, maximum: 10}
-                  reasoning: {type: string}
-              ethics:
-                type: object
-                properties:
-                  score: {type: number, minimum: 1, maximum: 10}
-                  reasoning: {type: string}
-              overall:
-                type: number
-                minimum: 1
-                maximum: 10
-          debate_transcript:
-            type: array
-            items:
-              type: object
-              properties:
-                round: {type: integer}
-                agent: {type: string}
-                position: {type: string}
-                arguments: {type: array, items: {type: string}}
-                evidence: {type: array, items: {type: string}}
-                timestamp: {type: string, format: date-time}
-          related_work:
-            type: array
-            items:
-              type: object
-              properties:
-                title: {type: string}
-                authors: {type: array, items: {type: string}}
-                year: {type: integer}
-                relevance: {type: number}
-                citation_relation: {type: string}
-          timestamp:
-            type: string
-            format: date-time
-
-  policies:
-    debate:
-      min_rounds: 2
-      max_rounds: 10
-      require_consensus_threshold: 0.70
-      allow_abstention: false
-      time_limit_per_round_seconds: 300
-      max_total_duration_seconds: 3600
-
-    agent_selection:
-      required_specialists:
-        - methodology_critic
-        - novelty_assessor
-        - reproducibility_checker
-      optional_specialists:
-        - impact_evaluator
-        - ethics_reviewer
-        - domain_expert
-      min_agents: 3
-      max_agents: 7
-
-    consensus:
-      agreement_threshold: 0.70
-      max_disagreement_rounds: 3
-      tie_breaking: moderator_decision
-
-  integration:
-    protocol: agent-to-agent
-    api_version: v1
-
-    agent_registry:
-      service_name: ossa-agent-registry
-      namespace: research
-      discovery: dns
-
-    messaging:
-      protocol: grpc
-      timeout_seconds: 30
-      retry_count: 3
-
-  monitoring:
-    metrics:
-      custom_metrics:
-        - debates_completed_total
-        - average_debate_duration_seconds
-        - consensus_rate
-        - average_agreement_score
-        - papers_reviewed_total
-
-  metadata:
-    version: 1.0.0
-    author:
-      name: Research Team
-      email: research@example.com
-    license: MIT
-```
-
-### Methodology Critic Agent
-
-```yaml
-apiVersion: ossa/v0.2.x
-kind: Agent
-metadata:
-  name: methodology-critic
-  namespace: research
-  labels:
-    app: research-review
-    tier: specialist
-    role: critic
-
-spec:
-  type: worker
-  description: |
-    Specialized agent that critically evaluates research methodology,
-    experimental design, statistical rigor, and scientific validity.
-
-  capabilities:
-    - name: critique_methodology
-      description: |
-        Analyze research methodology for rigor, validity, and soundness.
-      input_schema:
-        type: object
-        required: [paper_content, methodology_section]
-        properties:
-          paper_content:
-            type: string
-          methodology_section:
-            type: string
-          field:
-            type: string
-      output_schema:
-        type: object
-        properties:
-          score:
-            type: number
-            minimum: 1
-            maximum: 10
-          strengths:
-            type: array
-            items: {type: string}
-          weaknesses:
-            type: array
-            items: {type: string}
-          concerns:
-            type: array
-            items:
-              type: object
-              properties:
-                concern: {type: string}
-                severity: {type: string, enum: [critical, major, minor]}
-                suggestion: {type: string}
-          statistical_validity:
-            type: object
-            properties:
-              appropriate_tests: {type: boolean}
-              sample_size_adequate: {type: boolean}
-              assumptions_met: {type: boolean}
-              corrections_applied: {type: boolean}
-```
-
-### Novelty Assessor Agent
-
-```yaml
-apiVersion: ossa/v0.2.x
-kind: Agent
-metadata:
-  name: novelty-assessor
-  namespace: research
-  labels:
-    app: research-review
-    tier: specialist
-    role: assessor
-
-spec:
-  type: worker
-  description: |
-    Assesses research novelty by comparing against existing literature,
-    identifying incremental vs. breakthrough contributions.
-
-  capabilities:
-    - name: assess_novelty
-      description: |
-        Evaluate novelty and originality of research contribution.
-      input_schema:
-        type: object
-        required: [paper_content, related_work]
-        properties:
-          paper_content:
-            type: string
-          related_work:
-            type: array
-            items:
-              type: object
-      output_schema:
-        type: object
-        properties:
-          score:
-            type: number
-            minimum: 1
-            maximum: 10
-          novelty_type:
-            type: string
-            enum: [breakthrough, significant, incremental, derivative]
-          unique_contributions:
-            type: array
-            items: {type: string}
-          overlaps_with_existing:
-            type: array
-            items:
-              type: object
-              properties:
-                paper: {type: string}
-                overlap_description: {type: string}
-                degree: {type: string, enum: [high, medium, low]}
-```
-
-### Reproducibility Checker Agent
-
-```yaml
-apiVersion: ossa/v0.2.x
-kind: Agent
-metadata:
-  name: reproducibility-checker
-  namespace: research
-  labels:
-    app: research-review
-    tier: specialist
-    role: checker
-
-spec:
-  type: worker
-  description: |
-    Evaluates reproducibility by checking code availability,
-    data sharing, experimental details, and documentation quality.
-
-  capabilities:
-    - name: check_reproducibility
-      description: |
-        Assess reproducibility of research findings.
-      input_schema:
-        type: object
-        required: [paper_content]
-        properties:
-          paper_content:
-            type: string
-          code_repository:
-            type: string
-            format: uri
-          data_availability:
-            type: string
-      output_schema:
-        type: object
-        properties:
-          score:
-            type: number
-            minimum: 1
-            maximum: 10
-          code_available:
-            type: boolean
-          data_available:
-            type: boolean
-          sufficient_details:
-            type: boolean
-          dependencies_specified:
-            type: boolean
-          environment_documented:
-            type: boolean
-          reproducibility_barriers:
-            type: array
-            items:
-              type: object
-              properties:
-                barrier: {type: string}
-                severity: {type: string}
-                mitigation: {type: string}
-```
-
-## Implementation (Python)
-
-```python
-"""
-Research Multi-Agent Debate System
-
-Multi-agent system for rigorous research paper review through
-adversarial collaboration and structured debate.
-"""
-
-import asyncio
-from dataclasses import dataclass, field
-from typing import List, Dict, Optional, Any
-from enum import Enum
-import anthropic
-import arxiv
-
-
-class AgentRole(Enum):
-    METHODOLOGY_CRITIC = "methodology_critic"
-    NOVELTY_ASSESSOR = "novelty_assessor"
-    REPRODUCIBILITY_CHECKER = "reproducibility_checker"
-    IMPACT_EVALUATOR = "impact_evaluator"
-    ETHICS_REVIEWER = "ethics_reviewer"
-
-
-class Recommendation(Enum):
-    STRONG_ACCEPT = "strong_accept"
-    ACCEPT = "accept"
-    WEAK_ACCEPT = "weak_accept"
-    BORDERLINE = "borderline"
-    WEAK_REJECT = "weak_reject"
-    REJECT = "reject"
-    STRONG_REJECT = "strong_reject"
-
-
-@dataclass
-class DebateArgument:
-    agent: AgentRole
-    round_number: int
-    position: str
-    arguments: List[str]
-    evidence: List[str]
-    score: Optional[float] = None
-
-
-@dataclass
-class AgentScore:
-    score: float  # 1-10
-    reasoning: str
-    strengths: List[str] = field(default_factory=list)
-    weaknesses: List[str] = field(default_factory=list)
-
-
-@dataclass
-class ReviewResult:
-    review_id: str
-    recommendation: Recommendation
-    confidence: float
-    summary: Dict[str, Any]
-    scores: Dict[str, AgentScore]
-    debate_transcript: List[DebateArgument]
-    overall_score: float
-
-
-class SpecialistAgent:
-    """Base class for specialist review agents."""
-
-    def __init__(self, role: AgentRole, model: str = "claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022"):
-        self.role = role
-        self.model = model
-        self.client = anthropic.Anthropic()
-
-    async def initial_review(self, paper_content: str, context: Dict[str, Any]) -> AgentScore:
-        """Generate initial review from agent's perspective."""
-        raise NotImplementedError
-
-    async def rebuttal(self, other_arguments: List[DebateArgument], paper_content: str) -> DebateArgument:
-        """Generate rebuttal to other agents' arguments."""
-        raise NotImplementedError
-
-    async def provide_evidence(self, disputed_points: List[str], paper_content: str) -> DebateArgument:
-        """Provide evidence for disputed points."""
-        raise NotImplementedError
-
-    async def final_position(self, all_arguments: List[DebateArgument]) -> AgentScore:
-        """Final position after all debate rounds."""
-        raise NotImplementedError
-
-
-class MethodologyCritic(SpecialistAgent):
-    """Agent that critiques research methodology."""
-
-    def __init__(self):
-        super().__init__(AgentRole.METHODOLOGY_CRITIC)
-
-    async def initial_review(self, paper_content: str, context: Dict[str, Any]) -> AgentScore:
-        """Critique methodology rigor."""
-        prompt = f"""
-You are a methodology critic reviewing a research paper. Evaluate the research methodology
-for rigor, validity, and scientific soundness.
-
-Paper content:
-{paper_content[:4000]}
-
-Evaluate:
-1. Experimental design quality
-2. Statistical rigor and appropriate tests
-3. Sample size adequacy
-4. Control variables and confounds
-5. Validity threats
-
-Provide:
-- Score (1-10, where 10 is perfect methodology)
-- Reasoning for the score
-- List of strengths
-- List of weaknesses
-
-Return JSON format.
-        """
-
-        response = await asyncio.to_thread(
-            self.client.messages.create,
-            model=self.model,
-            max_tokens=2000,
-            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
-        )
-
-        # Parse response (simplified)
-        return AgentScore(
-            score=7.5,
-            reasoning="Methodology is generally sound but lacks power analysis",
-            strengths=["Rigorous experimental design", "Appropriate statistical tests"],
-            weaknesses=["Small sample size", "Missing power analysis"]
-        )
-
-    async def rebuttal(self, other_arguments: List[DebateArgument], paper_content: str) -> DebateArgument:
-        """Respond to other agents' arguments."""
-        other_positions = "\n\n".join([
-            f"{arg.agent.value}: {arg.position}\nArguments: {', '.join(arg.arguments)}"
-            for arg in other_arguments
-        ])
-
-        prompt = f"""
-As a methodology critic, respond to these other review positions:
-
-{other_positions}
-
-Focus on methodological concerns they may have missed or methodological strengths
-they undervalued.
-
-Provide:
-- Your position
-- Specific arguments
-- Evidence from the paper
-        """
-
-        response = await asyncio.to_thread(
-            self.client.messages.create,
-            model=self.model,
-            max_tokens=1500,
-            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
-        )
-
-        return DebateArgument(
-            agent=self.role,
-            round_number=2,
-            position="Methodology concerns are critical",
-            arguments=["Power analysis missing", "Sample size too small for claims"],
-            evidence=["Section 3.1 describes N=50 participants"]
-        )
-
-
-class NoveltyAssessor(SpecialistAgent):
-    """Agent that assesses research novelty."""
-
-    def __init__(self):
-        super().__init__(AgentRole.NOVELTY_ASSESSOR)
-
-    async def initial_review(self, paper_content: str, context: Dict[str, Any]) -> AgentScore:
-        """Assess novelty and originality."""
-
-        # Search for related work
-        related_papers = await self._search_related_work(context.get('title', ''))
-
-        prompt = f"""
-You are a novelty assessor. Evaluate the originality and novelty of this research.
-
-Paper content:
-{paper_content[:4000]}
-
-Related work found:
-{self._format_related_papers(related_papers)}
-
-Evaluate:
-1. Degree of novelty (breakthrough, significant, incremental, derivative)
-2. Unique contributions
-3. Overlap with existing work
-4. Advancement over state-of-the-art
-
-Provide:
-- Score (1-10, where 10 is groundbreaking novelty)
-- Reasoning
-- Strengths
-- Weaknesses
-        """
-
-        response = await asyncio.to_thread(
-            self.client.messages.create,
-            model=self.model,
-            max_tokens=2000,
-            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
-        )
-
-        return AgentScore(
-            score=8.0,
-            reasoning="Significant advancement with novel approach",
-            strengths=["New algorithmic contribution", "Outperforms baselines"],
-            weaknesses=["Limited to specific domain", "Builds heavily on prior work"]
-        )
-
-    async def _search_related_work(self, title: str) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]:
-        """Search arXiv for related papers."""
-        try:
-            search = arxiv.Search(
-                query=title,
-                max_results=10,
-                sort_by=arxiv.SortCriterion.Relevance
-            )
-
-            results = []
-            for result in search.results():
-                results.append({
-                    'title': result.title,
-                    'authors': [a.name for a in result.authors],
-                    'summary': result.summary[:200],
-                    'year': result.published.year
-                })
-
-            return results
-        except Exception as e:
-            print(f"Error searching arXiv: {e}")
-            return []
-
-    def _format_related_papers(self, papers: List[Dict[str, Any]]) -> str:
-        """Format related papers for prompt."""
-        return "\n\n".join([
-            f"- {p['title']} ({p['year']})\n  {p['summary']}"
-            for p in papers[:5]
-        ])
-
-
-class ReproducibilityChecker(SpecialistAgent):
-    """Agent that checks reproducibility."""
-
-    def __init__(self):
-        super().__init__(AgentRole.REPRODUCIBILITY_CHECKER)
-
-    async def initial_review(self, paper_content: str, context: Dict[str, Any]) -> AgentScore:
-        """Check reproducibility."""
-        prompt = f"""
-You are a reproducibility checker. Evaluate how reproducible this research is.
-
-Paper content:
-{paper_content[:4000]}
-
-Code repository: {context.get('code_repo', 'Not provided')}
-Data availability: {context.get('data_availability', 'Not specified')}
-
-Evaluate:
-1. Code availability and quality
-2. Data availability and accessibility
-3. Experimental details sufficiency
-4. Dependency specifications
-5. Environment documentation
-
-Provide:
-- Score (1-10, where 10 is fully reproducible)
-- Reasoning
-- Specific reproducibility barriers
-- Suggestions for improvement
-        """
-
-        response = await asyncio.to_thread(
-            self.client.messages.create,
-            model=self.model,
-            max_tokens=2000,
-            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
-        )
-
-        return AgentScore(
-            score=6.0,
-            reasoning="Code available but insufficient documentation",
-            strengths=["Code repository provided", "Clear experimental protocol"],
-            weaknesses=["Missing dependencies", "Data not publicly available", "Environment setup unclear"]
-        )
-
-
-class DebateOrchestrator:
-    """Orchestrates multi-agent debate for paper review."""
-
-    def __init__(self):
-        self.agents: List[SpecialistAgent] = [
-            MethodologyCritic(),
-            NoveltyAssessor(),
-            ReproducibilityChecker(),
-        ]
-        self.client = anthropic.Anthropic()
-
-    async def orchestrate_review(
-        self,
-        paper_id: str,
-        paper_content: str,
-        metadata: Dict[str, Any],
-        config: Optional[Dict[str, Any]] = None
-    ) -> ReviewResult:
-        """Orchestrate complete multi-agent review."""
-
-        config = config or {'rounds': 4}
-        review_id = self._generate_review_id()
-
-        print(f"Starting review {review_id} for paper: {metadata.get('title', 'Unknown')}")
-
-        # Round 1: Initial positions
-        print("\n=== Round 1: Initial Positions ===")
-        initial_scores = await self._round_1_initial_positions(paper_content, metadata)
-
-        # Round 2: Rebuttals
-        print("\n=== Round 2: Rebuttals ===")
-        rebuttals = await self._round_2_rebuttals(paper_content, initial_scores)
-
-        # Round 3: Evidence gathering
-        print("\n=== Round 3: Evidence ===")
-        evidence = await self._round_3_evidence(paper_content, rebuttals)
-
-        # Round 4: Consensus building
-        print("\n=== Round 4: Consensus ===")
-        final_scores = await self._round_4_consensus(initial_scores, rebuttals, evidence)
-
-        # Synthesize recommendation
-        recommendation, confidence = self._synthesize_recommendation(final_scores)
-
-        # Generate summary
-        summary = await self._generate_summary(paper_content, final_scores, rebuttals)
-
-        # Calculate overall score
-        overall_score = sum(s.score for s in final_scores.values()) / len(final_scores)
-
-        result = ReviewResult(
-            review_id=review_id,
-            recommendation=recommendation,
-            confidence=confidence,
-            summary=summary,
-            scores=final_scores,
-            debate_transcript=rebuttals + evidence,
-            overall_score=overall_score
-        )
-
-        print(f"\n=== Review Complete ===")
-        print(f"Recommendation: {recommendation.value}")
-        print(f"Confidence: {confidence:.2f}")
-        print(f"Overall Score: {overall_score:.1f}/10")
-
-        return result
-
-    async def _round_1_initial_positions(
-        self,
-        paper_content: str,
-        metadata: Dict[str, Any]
-    ) -> Dict[AgentRole, AgentScore]:
-        """Round 1: Each agent provides initial position."""
-        tasks = [
-            agent.initial_review(paper_content, metadata)
-            for agent in self.agents
-        ]
-        scores = await asyncio.gather(*tasks)
-
-        results = {}
-        for agent, score in zip(self.agents, scores):
-            results[agent.role] = score
-            print(f"{agent.role.value}: {score.score}/10 - {score.reasoning}")
-
-        return results
-
-    async def _round_2_rebuttals(
-        self,
-        paper_content: str,
-        initial_scores: Dict[AgentRole, AgentScore]
-    ) -> List[DebateArgument]:
-        """Round 2: Agents provide rebuttals."""
-        # Convert scores to arguments
-        initial_arguments = [
-            DebateArgument(
-                agent=role,
-                round_number=1,
-                position=score.reasoning,
-                arguments=score.weaknesses,
-                evidence=score.strengths,
-                score=score.score
-            )
-            for role, score in initial_scores.items()
-        ]
-
-        tasks = [
-            agent.rebuttal(initial_arguments, paper_content)
-            for agent in self.agents
-        ]
-        rebuttals = await asyncio.gather(*tasks)
-
-        for rebuttal in rebuttals:
-            print(f"{rebuttal.agent.value}: {rebuttal.position}")
-
-        return rebuttals
-
-    async def _round_3_evidence(
-        self,
-        paper_content: str,
-        rebuttals: List[DebateArgument]
-    ) -> List[DebateArgument]:
-        """Round 3: Agents provide evidence for disputed points."""
-        # Identify disputed points
-        disputed = self._identify_disputes(rebuttals)
-
-        tasks = [
-            agent.provide_evidence(disputed, paper_content)
-            for agent in self.agents
-        ]
-        evidence = await asyncio.gather(*tasks)
-
-        return evidence
-
-    async def _round_4_consensus(
-        self,
-        initial_scores: Dict[AgentRole, AgentScore],
-        rebuttals: List[DebateArgument],
-        evidence: List[DebateArgument]
-    ) -> Dict[AgentRole, AgentScore]:
-        """Round 4: Agents provide final positions."""
-        all_arguments = rebuttals + evidence
-
-        tasks = [
-            agent.final_position(all_arguments)
-            for agent in self.agents
-        ]
-        final_scores = await asyncio.gather(*tasks)
-
-        results = {}
-        for agent, score in zip(self.agents, final_scores):
-            results[agent.role] = score
-            print(f"{agent.role.value}: Final score {score.score}/10")
-
-        return results
-
-    def _synthesize_recommendation(
-        self,
-        scores: Dict[AgentRole, AgentScore]
-    ) -> tuple[Recommendation, float]:
-        """Synthesize final recommendation from agent scores."""
-        avg_score = sum(s.score for s in scores.values()) / len(scores)
-
-        # Calculate confidence based on agreement
-        score_variance = sum((s.score - avg_score) ** 2 for s in scores.values()) / len(scores)
-        confidence = max(0.0, 1.0 - (score_variance / 10))
-
-        # Map score to recommendation
-        if avg_score >= 8.5:
-            rec = Recommendation.STRONG_ACCEPT
-        elif avg_score >= 7.5:
-            rec = Recommendation.ACCEPT
-        elif avg_score >= 6.5:
-            rec = Recommendation.WEAK_ACCEPT
-        elif avg_score >= 5.5:
-            rec = Recommendation.BORDERLINE
-        elif avg_score >= 4.5:
-            rec = Recommendation.WEAK_REJECT
-        elif avg_score >= 3.5:
-            rec = Recommendation.REJECT
-        else:
-            rec = Recommendation.STRONG_REJECT
-
-        return rec, confidence
-
-    async def _generate_summary(
-        self,
-        paper_content: str,
-        scores: Dict[AgentRole, AgentScore],
-        debate: List[DebateArgument]
-    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
-        """Generate executive summary of review."""
-        all_strengths = []
-        all_weaknesses = []
-
-        for score in scores.values():
-            all_strengths.extend(score.strengths)
-            all_weaknesses.extend(score.weaknesses)
-
-        # Deduplicate
-        strengths = list(set(all_strengths))
-        weaknesses = list(set(all_weaknesses))
-
-        return {
-            'strengths': strengths,
-            'weaknesses': weaknesses,
-            'key_findings': [
-                f"{role.value}: {score.reasoning}"
-                for role, score in scores.items()
-            ],
-            'controversial_points': self._identify_disputes([])
-        }
-
-    def _identify_disputes(self, arguments: List[DebateArgument]) -> List[str]:
-        """Identify disputed points in debate."""
-        # Simplified: return empty list
-        return []
-
-    def _generate_review_id(self) -> str:
-        """Generate unique review ID."""
-        import uuid
-        return str(uuid.uuid4())
-
-
-# Example usage
-async def main():
-    """Example: Review a paper."""
-    orchestrator = DebateOrchestrator()
-
-    # Mock paper content (in practice, extract from PDF)
-    paper_content = """
-    Title: Novel Approach to Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
-
-    Abstract: We present a novel approach to multi-agent reinforcement learning...
-
-    [Full paper content would go here]
-    """
-
-    metadata = {
-        'title': 'Novel Approach to Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning',
-        'authors': ['Smith, J.', 'Doe, A.'],
-        'year': 2024,
-        'field': 'cs',
-        'code_repo': 'https://github.com/example/marl',
-        'data_availability': 'Upon request'
-    }
-
-    result = await orchestrator.orchestrate_review(
-        paper_id='arxiv:2024.12345',
-        paper_content=paper_content,
-        metadata=metadata
-    )
-
-    print(f"\n=== Final Review ===")
-    print(f"Recommendation: {result.recommendation.value}")
-    print(f"Confidence: {result.confidence:.2f}")
-    print(f"Overall Score: {result.overall_score:.1f}/10")
-    print(f"\nStrengths:")
-    for strength in result.summary['strengths']:
-        print(f"  - {strength}")
-    print(f"\nWeaknesses:")
-    for weakness in result.summary['weaknesses']:
-        print(f"  - {weakness}")
-
-
-if __name__ == "__main__":
-    asyncio.run(main())
-```
-
-## Deployment Instructions
-
-### Step 1: Deploy Agent System
-
-```bash
-# Deploy orchestrator
-kubectl apply -f - <<EOF
-apiVersion: apps/v1
-kind: Deployment
-metadata:
-  name: research-orchestrator
-  namespace: research
-spec:
-  replicas: 2
-  selector:
-    matchLabels:
-      app: research-orchestrator
-  template:
-    metadata:
-      labels:
-        app: research-orchestrator
-    spec:
-      containers:
-      - name: orchestrator
-        image: registry.example.com/agents/research-orchestrator:1.0.0
-        env:
-        - name: ANTHROPIC_API_KEY
-          valueFrom:
-            secretKeyRef:
-              name: ai-keys
-              key: anthropic
-EOF
-
-# Deploy specialist agents
-for agent in methodology-critic novelty-assessor reproducibility-checker; do
-  kubectl apply -f - <<EOF
-apiVersion: apps/v1
-kind: Deployment
-metadata:
-  name: $agent
-  namespace: research
-spec:
-  replicas: 3
-  selector:
-    matchLabels:
-      app: $agent
-  template:
-    metadata:
-      labels:
-        app: $agent
-    spec:
-      containers:
-      - name: agent
-        image: registry.example.com/agents/$agent:1.0.0
-        env:
-        - name: ANTHROPIC_API_KEY
-          valueFrom:
-            secretKeyRef:
-              name: ai-keys
-              key: anthropic
-EOF
-done
-```
-
-### Step 2: Configure Agent Registry
-
-```bash
-# Deploy OSSA agent registry for agent discovery
-kubectl apply -f agent-registry.yaml
-```
-
-## Production Checklist
-
-- [ ] All specialist agents deployed and registered
-- [ ] Debate rounds configured appropriately
-- [ ] Consensus thresholds validated
-- [ ] ArXiv/PubMed API access configured
-- [ ] Code repository scanning enabled
-- [ ] Metrics and monitoring deployed
-- [ ] Cost limits configured
-- [ ] Debate transcripts logged for analysis
-- [ ] Human review integration tested
-
-## Cost Management
-
-- **Per-paper cost**: ~$5-10 (4 agents × 4 rounds × $0.30/round)
-- **Optimization**: Cache literature searches, reuse embeddings, batch processing
-- **Budget alerts**: Notify when approaching limits
-
-## Further Reading
-
-- [Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning](https://arxiv.org/)
-- [Peer Review Best Practices](https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/peer-review)
-- [OSSA Multi-Agent Patterns](https://openstandardagents.org/docs/multi-agent)