@compilr-dev/sdk 0.5.6 → 0.5.8

package/dist/index.d.ts

@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ export type { AskUserQuestion, AskUserInput, AskUserResult, AskUserHandler, AskU
 export { createPlatformTools, createProjectTools, createWorkItemTools, createDocumentTools, createPlanTools, createBacklogTools, createAnchorTools, createArtifactTools, createEpisodeTools, ProjectAnchorStore, } from './platform/index.js';
 export type { ProjectAnchorStoreConfig } from './platform/index.js';
 export { STEP_ORDER, GUIDED_STEP_CRITERIA, getNextStep, isValidTransition, getStepCriteria, formatStepDisplay, getStepNumber, } from './platform/index.js';
-export { platformSkills, designSkill, sketchSkill, prdSkill, refineSkill, refineItemSkill, architectureSkill, sessionNotesSkill, buildSkill, scaffoldSkill, outlineSkill, literatureReviewSkill, } from './skills/index.js';
+export { platformSkills, designSkill, sketchSkill, prdSkill, refineSkill, refineItemSkill, architectureSkill, sessionNotesSkill, buildSkill, scaffoldSkill, outlineSkill, literatureReviewSkill, draftSectionSkill, peerReviewSkill, } from './skills/index.js';
 export { ACTION_REGISTRY, getActionsForContext, getActionById, resolveActionPrompt, buildContextSummary, getSuggestedRole, } from './actions/index.js';
 export type { ActionContext, ActionDefinition } from './actions/index.js';
 export { PROJECT_TYPES, getProjectTypeConfig, getProjectTypesByCategory, generalConfig, softwareConfig, researchConfig, businessPlanConfig, contentConfig, techDocsConfig, courseConfig, } from './project-types/index.js';

package/dist/index.js

@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ export { STEP_ORDER, GUIDED_STEP_CRITERIA, getNextStep, isValidTransition, getSt
 // =============================================================================
 // Platform Skills (platform-specific prompt expansions)
 // =============================================================================
-export { platformSkills, designSkill, sketchSkill, prdSkill, refineSkill, refineItemSkill, architectureSkill, sessionNotesSkill, buildSkill, scaffoldSkill, outlineSkill, literatureReviewSkill, } from './skills/index.js';
+export { platformSkills, designSkill, sketchSkill, prdSkill, refineSkill, refineItemSkill, architectureSkill, sessionNotesSkill, buildSkill, scaffoldSkill, outlineSkill, literatureReviewSkill, draftSectionSkill, peerReviewSkill, } from './skills/index.js';
 // =============================================================================
 // Contextual Actions (skill invocations with context)
 // =============================================================================

package/dist/project-types/configs.js

@@ -154,8 +154,8 @@ export const researchConfig = {
         { type: 'bibliography', label: 'Bibliography', description: 'References and citations' },
         { type: 'session-notes', label: 'Session Notes', description: 'Summary of work done' },
     ],
-    projectActions: ['outline', 'literature-review', 'session-notes'],
-    workItemActions: ['explain'],
+    projectActions: ['outline', 'literature-review', 'draft-section', 'peer-review', 'session-notes'],
+    workItemActions: ['draft-section', 'explain'],
     workItemLabels: {
         feature: { short: 'SC', full: 'Section' },
         bug: { short: 'RV', full: 'Revision' },

package/dist/skills/index.d.ts

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 /**
  * Platform Skills — barrel export
  */
-export { platformSkills, designSkill, sketchSkill, prdSkill, refineSkill, refineItemSkill, architectureSkill, sessionNotesSkill, buildSkill, scaffoldSkill, outlineSkill, literatureReviewSkill, } from './platform-skills.js';
+export { platformSkills, designSkill, sketchSkill, prdSkill, refineSkill, refineItemSkill, architectureSkill, sessionNotesSkill, buildSkill, scaffoldSkill, outlineSkill, literatureReviewSkill, draftSectionSkill, peerReviewSkill, } from './platform-skills.js';

package/dist/skills/index.js

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 /**
  * Platform Skills — barrel export
  */
-export { platformSkills, designSkill, sketchSkill, prdSkill, refineSkill, refineItemSkill, architectureSkill, sessionNotesSkill, buildSkill, scaffoldSkill, outlineSkill, literatureReviewSkill, } from './platform-skills.js';
+export { platformSkills, designSkill, sketchSkill, prdSkill, refineSkill, refineItemSkill, architectureSkill, sessionNotesSkill, buildSkill, scaffoldSkill, outlineSkill, literatureReviewSkill, draftSectionSkill, peerReviewSkill, } from './platform-skills.js';

package/dist/skills/platform-skills.d.ts

@@ -19,8 +19,10 @@ export declare const buildSkill: Skill;
 export declare const scaffoldSkill: Skill;
 export declare const outlineSkill: Skill;
 export declare const literatureReviewSkill: Skill;
+export declare const draftSectionSkill: Skill;
+export declare const peerReviewSkill: Skill;
 /**
- * All platform-specific skills (11 total).
+ * All platform-specific skills (13 total).
  * These skills reference platform tools (backlog, workitems, documents, projects)
  * and belong in the SDK rather than in generic agent/coding libraries.
  */

package/dist/skills/platform-skills.js

@@ -1094,11 +1094,272 @@ If multiple sources have been analyzed, provide a thematic synthesis:
 ✓ User has reviewed the source-claim mappings`,
     tags: ['research', 'analysis', 'sources'],
 });
+export const draftSectionSkill = defineSkill({
+    name: 'draft-section',
+    description: 'Draft a paper section using the outline, claims, and linked sources',
+    prompt: `You are in DRAFT SECTION MODE. Your goal is to write or revise a section of the research paper, guided by the Research Model's outline, claims, and linked sources.
+
+## When to Use
+- A section has status "outlined" and needs its first draft
+- A section needs revision based on reviewer feedback
+- The user wants to expand a section with more detail
+
+## Step 1: Select the Section
+
+1. Use \`research_model_get\` with scope: "sections" to see all sections and their status
+2. If the user didn't specify which section, suggest the next logical one:
+   - Methodology first (grounds the paper)
+   - Literature Review (needed early)
+   - Results / Findings (core content)
+   - Discussion (interpretation)
+   - Introduction and Conclusion last (summaries)
+3. Confirm the section choice with the user
+
+## Step 2: Gather Section Context
+
+For the chosen section:
+1. Use \`research_model_get\` with sectionId to get the section's purpose, claims, and notes
+2. Read any existing draft file (if the section has been drafted before)
+3. For each claim with linked sources, read the source content from KB to understand the evidence
+4. Check the citation style from the model: \`research_model_get\` with scope: "overview"
+
+Summarize to the user:
+- "Section: {title}"
+- "Purpose: {purpose}"
+- "Claims to address: {list}"
+- "Sources available: {list with citeKeys}"
+
+## Step 3: Draft the Section
+
+Write the section following these guidelines:
+
+**Structure:**
+- Start with a topic sentence that states the section's purpose
+- Address each claim in the section in a logical order
+- Use transitions between paragraphs
+- End with a connection to the next section (or summary for final sections)
+
+**Citations:**
+- Use the project's citation style for in-text citations
+- APA: (Author, Year) or Author (Year)
+- MLA: (Author Page) or Author (Page)
+- IEEE: [citeKey] or [N]
+- Chicago: (Author Year) or Author (Year)
+- Harvard: (Author Year) or Author (Year)
+- Cite sources for every non-original claim
+- When multiple sources support a claim, cite them together
+
+**Academic Tone:**
+- Formal but clear — avoid jargon without definition
+- Use hedging language where appropriate ("suggests", "indicates", "appears to")
+- Distinguish between established facts and interpretations
+- Use active voice for the author's contributions, passive for general findings
+
+**Length:**
+- Respect the section's targetWordCount if set
+- If not set, aim for appropriate length based on scope:
+  - Journal article section: 500-1500 words
+  - Thesis chapter: 2000-5000 words
+  - Literature review section: 800-2000 words
+
+## Step 4: Write the File
+
+1. Determine the file path: \`{project_path}/sections/{section_order}-{section_slug}.md\`
+   - e.g., \`sections/01-introduction.md\`, \`sections/03-methodology.md\`
+2. Write the draft using \`write_file\` or \`edit_file\` (if revising)
+3. Include a header comment: \`<!-- Section: {title} | Status: drafted | Rev: {model revision} -->\`
+
+## Step 5: Update the Model
+
+After writing:
+1. Update section status: \`research_model_update\` with op: "section_update", sectionId, updates: { status: "drafted", actualWordCount: N }
+2. If new claims emerged during writing, add them: \`research_model_update\` with op: "claim_add"
+3. If evidence strength changed based on closer reading, update claims
+
+## Step 6: Generate Bibliography (if needed)
+
+If this is the first section being drafted or the user requests it:
+1. Use \`bibliography_generate\` with format: "markdown" to produce the references list
+2. Write it to \`{project_path}/sections/references.md\`
+
+## Step 7: Summary
+
+Report to the user:
+- Section drafted: title, word count, file path
+- Claims addressed: list with evidence strength
+- Citations used: list of citeKeys
+- Suggestions: any gaps noticed, claims that need more support
+
+## Rules
+- NEVER fabricate citations — only cite sources that exist in the Research Model
+- If a claim lacks source support, note it explicitly rather than inventing a reference
+- Maintain consistency with previously drafted sections (terminology, tense, voice)
+- If the section has subsections in the model, draft them as ## subheadings
+- Read existing drafted sections first to maintain consistent style
+- Ask the user about tone preferences if this is the first section being drafted
+
+## Completion Criteria
+✓ Section file written with proper citations
+✓ Model updated (status: drafted, actualWordCount)
+✓ All claims in the section are addressed in the text
+✓ In-text citations match the project's citation style
+✓ User has reviewed the draft`,
+    tags: ['research', 'writing', 'drafting'],
+});
+export const peerReviewSkill = defineSkill({
+    name: 'peer-review',
+    description: 'Validate argument structure, find logical gaps, check consistency across sections',
+    prompt: `You are in PEER REVIEW MODE. Your goal is to critically evaluate the research paper's argument structure, identify gaps, and check consistency — like an academic peer reviewer.
+
+## When to Use
+- One or more sections have been drafted
+- The user wants feedback before submitting/finalizing
+- After significant revisions to check nothing was broken
+- To identify areas that need more work
+
+## Step 1: Assess What's Available
+
+1. Use \`research_model_get\` with scope: "overview" for the big picture
+2. Use \`research_model_get\` with scope: "sections" to see status of each section
+3. Run \`research_model_validate\` for structural issues and warnings
+
+Report to the user:
+- "X sections drafted, Y still outlined, Z sources linked"
+- Any structural errors from validation
+- Which sections are ready for review
+
+If no sections are drafted yet, tell the user: "There's nothing to review yet — run /draft-section first."
+
+## Step 2: Argument Structure Review
+
+Read each drafted section (use \`read_file\` on the section files) and evaluate:
+
+**Thesis & Research Questions:**
+- Is the main thesis clearly stated in the Introduction?
+- Does each section contribute to answering the research questions?
+- Are the research questions actually addressed by the paper's content?
+
+**Logical Flow:**
+- Does the argument progress logically from Introduction → Literature Review → Methodology → Results → Discussion → Conclusion?
+- Does each section build on what came before?
+- Are there logical jumps or non-sequiturs between sections?
+
+**Claim Validation:**
+For each claim in the Research Model:
+- Is it actually stated in the draft text?
+- Is it supported by the cited sources?
+- Is the evidence strength rating accurate given the sources?
+- Are there unsupported assertions presented as established facts?
+
+Rate each issue found:
+- **Critical** — breaks the argument (e.g., unsupported central claim, circular reasoning)
+- **Major** — weakens the argument significantly (e.g., missing counter-arguments, logical gap)
+- **Minor** — should be fixed but doesn't break the argument (e.g., vague language, minor inconsistency)
+
+## Step 3: Gap Detection
+
+Check for missing elements:
+
+**Source Gaps:**
+- Claims that should have citations but don't
+- Sections that rely on very few sources
+- Important counter-arguments not addressed
+- Methodology claims without justification
+
+**Structural Gaps:**
+- Research questions not addressed by any section
+- Sections that don't connect to the overall argument
+- Missing limitations discussion
+- Missing future work section (if appropriate)
+
+**Content Gaps:**
+- Definitions used but never introduced
+- Acronyms used without expansion
+- Figures/tables referenced but not present
+- Promises made in the Introduction but not delivered
+
+## Step 4: Consistency Check
+
+Across all drafted sections, check:
+
+**Terminology:**
+- Is the same concept referred to consistently? (e.g., not "users" in one place and "participants" in another without reason)
+- Are technical terms used with consistent meaning?
+
+**Tense:**
+- Literature review: past tense for completed studies
+- Methodology: past tense for what was done, present for general statements
+- Results: past tense for findings
+- Discussion: present tense for interpretations
+
+**Voice & Tone:**
+- Is the level of formality consistent?
+- Is the author's voice consistent (not shifting between confident and hedging without reason)?
+
+**Numbers & Data:**
+- Do statistics match between text and any tables/figures?
+- Are numbers formatted consistently?
+
+## Step 5: Cross-Reference Check
+
+- "As discussed in Section X" — does Section X actually discuss that?
+- "See Table N" / "See Figure N" — do they exist?
+- Citations in text match sources in the Research Model
+- Consistent use of citation style throughout
+
+## Step 6: Generate Review Report
+
+Structure the report as:
+
+### Strengths
+- What the paper does well (2-3 points)
+
+### Critical Issues
+- Issues that must be addressed (with specific locations)
+
+### Major Issues
+- Significant improvements needed
+
+### Minor Issues
+- Small fixes and suggestions
+
+### Recommendations
+- Prioritized list of what to fix first
+- Suggested order of revisions
+
+Write the report to \`{project_path}/reviews/peer-review-{date}.md\`
+
+## Step 7: Update Model
+
+For issues that affect the Research Model:
+1. Update claim evidence strength if ratings were inaccurate
+2. Add new claims if the review identified missing arguments
+3. Create work items (type: "bug" / displayed as "Revision") for each critical and major issue:
+   - \`workitem_create\` with type: "bug", title: "Review: {brief issue}", description: detailed issue + suggested fix
+
+## Rules
+- Be constructive, not destructive — every critique should include a suggestion for improvement
+- Reference specific sections, claims, and sources by ID/citeKey
+- Don't rewrite the paper — point out issues and let the author fix them
+- Distinguish between opinion ("I would suggest...") and errors ("This claim is unsupported")
+- If the argument is sound, say so — don't manufacture problems
+- Focus on the argument, not the writing style (that's the Editor's job)
+
+## Completion Criteria
+✓ All drafted sections reviewed
+✓ Argument structure evaluated (thesis, logical flow, claim support)
+✓ Gaps identified (source, structural, content)
+✓ Consistency checked (terminology, tense, cross-references)
+✓ Review report written to file
+✓ Revision work items created for critical/major issues
+✓ User has received the review summary`,
+    tags: ['research', 'review', 'quality'],
+});
 // =============================================================================
 // Aggregate export
 // =============================================================================
 /**
- * All platform-specific skills (11 total).
+ * All platform-specific skills (13 total).
  * These skills reference platform tools (backlog, workitems, documents, projects)
  * and belong in the SDK rather than in generic agent/coding libraries.
  */
@@ -1114,4 +1375,6 @@ export const platformSkills = [
     scaffoldSkill,
     outlineSkill,
     literatureReviewSkill,
+    draftSectionSkill,
+    peerReviewSkill,
 ];

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@compilr-dev/sdk",
-  "version": "0.5.6",
+  "version": "0.5.8",
   "description": "Universal agent runtime for building AI-powered applications",
   "type": "module",
   "main": "dist/index.js",