maestro-flow 0.5.31 → 0.5.33

package/.agents/skills/scholar-review/phases/03-response-strategy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
+# Phase 3: Response Strategy
+
+> **COMPACT SENTINEL [Phase 3: Response Strategy]**
+> This phase contains 4 execution steps (Step 3.1 -- 3.4).
+> If you can read this sentinel but cannot find the full Step protocol below, context has been compressed.
+> Recovery: `read_file("phases/03-response-strategy.md")`
+
+Plan the rebuttal strategy for each reviewer comment, selecting the appropriate response approach and planning any required actions (experiments, revisions, clarifications).
+
+## Objective
+
+- Select a response strategy (Accept / Defend / Clarify / Experiment) for each comment
+- Plan concrete actions required for each response
+- Estimate effort and feasibility of requested changes
+- Prioritize actions by impact on acceptance decision
+
+## Execution
+
+### Step 3.1: Load Review Analysis
+
+Read the review analysis from Phase 2:
+
+```
+read_file({OUTPUT_DIR}/review-analysis.md)
+```
+
+Re-read paper sections as needed for planning.
+
+### Step 3.2: Select Strategy Per Comment
+
+For each comment in the review analysis, select one or more strategies:
+
+**Strategy Selection Flow**:
+```
+Comment → Classification → Strategy
+
+Major Issues:
+  ├─ Request is reasonable and feasible → Accept + Experiment
+  ├─ Current approach has strong justification → Defend (with evidence)
+  ├─ Request is partially feasible → Accept (partial) + Defend (remainder)
+  └─ Request is infeasible → Defend + offer alternative
+
+Minor Issues:
+  ├─ Easy to address → Accept
+  ├─ Already addressed in paper → Clarify
+  └─ Improvement suggestion → Accept (if reasonable) or Defend (if not)
+
+Typos/Formatting:
+  └─ Always → Accept
+
+Misunderstandings:
+  ├─ Paper content exists but unclear → Clarify + Accept (improve wording)
+  └─ Paper content exists and is clear → Clarify (point to location)
+```
+
+For each comment, record:
+
+```
+{
+  commentId: "1.1",
+  strategy: ["Accept", "Experiment"] | ["Defend"] | ["Clarify"] | etc.,
+  rationale: "Why this strategy was chosen",
+  actions: [
+    {
+      type: "add_experiment" | "revise_text" | "add_figure" | "add_citation" | "clarify_existing" | "fix_typo",
+      description: "Specific action to take",
+      effort: "low | medium | high",
+      feasibility: "certain | likely | uncertain",
+      paperLocation: "Where the change goes"
+    }
+  ],
+  keyPoints: ["Main argument point 1", "Main argument point 2"],
+  evidence: ["Supporting evidence 1", "Supporting evidence 2"]
+}
+```
+
+### Step 3.3: Venue-Specific Strategy Adjustments
+
+> **CHECKPOINT**: Before proceeding, verify:
+> 1. This phase is track_tasks `in_progress` (active phase protection)
+> 2. Full protocol (Step 3.1 -- 3.4) is in active memory, not just sentinel
+> If only sentinel remains -> `read_file("phases/03-response-strategy.md")` now.
+
+Apply venue-specific rebuttal conventions:
+
+**NeurIPS**:
+- Emphasize conceptual novelty over incremental improvements
+- Address broader impact concerns proactively
+- Promise reproducibility (code release, detailed setup)
+
+**ICML**:
+- Strengthen theoretical foundations when challenged
+- Provide mathematical proofs or complexity analysis
+- Link experimental results to theoretical predictions
+
+**ICLR**:
+- Prioritize adding requested experiments (highest impact)
+- Expand limitations section honestly
+- Disclose LLM usage if applicable
+- Use evidence-supported clarifications (strongest correlation with score increase)
+- For borderline papers (5-6 range): focus on quick-win improvements
+
+**CVPR**:
+- Respect strict one-page rebuttal limit
+- Identify champion reviewer and strengthen their arguments
+- No external links; include results inline
+- Restate core contributions while addressing concerns
+
+**ACL**:
+- May include small tables in rebuttal
+- Emphasize linguistic significance and NLP community impact
+- Address ethics and bias concerns thoroughly
+
+### Step 3.4: Generate Response Strategy Document
+
+Compile strategy decisions into the planning document:
+
+```markdown
+# Response Strategy
+
+## Paper: [Paper Title]
+## Date: [Date]
+## Target Venue: [Venue]
+
+## Strategy Overview
+
+| Comment | Type | Strategy | Effort | Priority |
+|---------|------|----------|--------|----------|
+| 1.1 | Major | Accept + Experiment | High | Critical |
+| 1.2 | Minor | Accept | Low | Medium |
+| 2.1 | Misunderstanding | Clarify | Low | High |
+| ... | | | | |
+
+## Effort Summary
+
+- **High effort actions**: N (experiments, major rewrites)
+- **Medium effort actions**: N (new text, additional analysis)
+- **Low effort actions**: N (typo fixes, minor clarifications)
+- **Estimated total effort**: [assessment]
+
+## Detailed Strategy Per Comment
+
+### Reviewer 1
+
+#### Comment 1.1 [Major] -- Accept + Experiment
+- **Original**: "[comment]"
+- **Strategy rationale**: [Why Accept + Experiment]
+- **Actions**:
+  1. [Action description] (effort: high, location: Section X)
+  2. [Action description] (effort: low, location: Table Y)
+- **Key response points**:
+  - [Point 1 with evidence]
+  - [Point 2 with evidence]
+- **Draft response outline**: Thank reviewer → Acknowledge validity → Present new results → Reference location
+
+[... more comments]
+
+### Reviewer 2
+
+[Same format]
+
+### Reviewer 3
+
+[Same format]
+
+## Cross-Cutting Actions
+
+Actions that address multiple reviewer comments:
+1. [Action]: Addresses comments [1.1, 2.3, 3.1]
+2. [Action]: Addresses comments [1.2, 3.2]
+
+## Venue-Specific Notes
+
+[Venue-specific strategy adjustments applied]
+
+## Risk Assessment
+
+- **Strongest responses**: Comments [X, Y] -- high confidence
+- **Weakest responses**: Comments [X, Y] -- may need additional evidence
+- **Potential reviewer pushback**: [Anticipated challenges]
+```
+
+Save to: `{OUTPUT_DIR}/response-strategy.md`
+
+## Output
+
+- **File**: `response-strategy.md` in the designated output directory
+- **Variable**: `responseStrategy` (strategy data for Phase 4)
+- **track_tasks**: Mark Phase 3 completed, Phase 4 in_progress
+
+## Next Phase
+
+Return to orchestrator, then auto-continue to [Phase 4: Rebuttal Writing](04-rebuttal-writing.md).

package/.agents/skills/scholar-review/phases/04-rebuttal-writing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+# Phase 4: Rebuttal Writing
+
+> **COMPACT SENTINEL [Phase 4: Rebuttal Writing]**
+> This phase contains 5 execution steps (Step 4.1 -- 4.5).
+> If you can read this sentinel but cannot find the full Step protocol below, context has been compressed.
+> Recovery: `read_file("phases/04-rebuttal-writing.md")`
+
+Write the complete, structured rebuttal document with professional responses to every reviewer comment.
+
+## Objective
+
+- Write point-by-point responses following the planned strategy
+- Maintain professional, respectful, evidence-based tone throughout
+- Follow venue-specific formatting conventions
+- Ensure completeness (every comment addressed)
+
+## Execution
+
+### Step 4.1: Load Strategy and References
+
+Read the response strategy from Phase 3:
+```
+read_file({OUTPUT_DIR}/response-strategy.md)
+```
+
+Also load:
+- The review analysis: `read_file({OUTPUT_DIR}/review-analysis.md)`
+- The paper for specific references: `read_file(paperPath)`
+- Tone guidelines: `Ref: specs/tone-guidelines.md`
+
+### Step 4.2: Write Opening Statement
+
+Write the rebuttal opening that sets the professional tone:
+
+**Standard opening structure**:
+```markdown
+We sincerely thank all reviewers for their valuable feedback and constructive
+suggestions. We have carefully addressed all comments and made substantial
+revisions to improve the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to
+each reviewer's comments.
+```
+
+**Venue-specific openings**:
+
+For NeurIPS:
+```markdown
+We thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. Our key contributions
+advance the field by [innovation]. We have strengthened the paper with
+[improvements] and clarified [areas]. All code and data will be released upon
+acceptance to ensure reproducibility.
+```
+
+For ICML:
+```markdown
+We appreciate the reviewers' thorough evaluation. We have added theoretical
+analysis [details] and expanded our experimental validation. We have also
+enhanced the broader impact statement to address [concerns].
+```
+
+For ICLR:
+```markdown
+We thank the reviewers for their detailed comments. We have conducted additional
+experiments [details] addressing all concerns. We have also expanded the
+Limitations section and [other improvements]. These revisions significantly
+strengthen the empirical validation.
+```
+
+### Step 4.3: Write Point-by-Point Responses
+
+> **CHECKPOINT**: Before proceeding, verify:
+> 1. This phase is track_tasks `in_progress` (active phase protection)
+> 2. Full protocol (Step 4.1 -- 4.5) is in active memory, not just sentinel
+> If only sentinel remains -> `read_file("phases/04-rebuttal-writing.md")` now.
+
+For each reviewer, write responses following the planned strategy. Use the response format:
+
+**Standard response format per comment**:
+```markdown
+**Comment [N.M]**: [Exact quote or faithful summary of reviewer's comment]
+
+**Response**: [Our response following the selected strategy]
+
+**Changes**: [Specific changes made, with section/page/table references]
+```
+
+**Strategy-specific templates**:
+
+**Accept strategy**:
+```markdown
+**Response**: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have
+[specific modification action]. [Location of change].
+```
+
+**Defend strategy**:
+```markdown
+**Response**: We appreciate the reviewer's concern. However, we respectfully
+note that [explanation with rationale]. This choice is motivated by [specific
+reasons]. [Optional: cite supporting evidence]. We have added this discussion
+to [location].
+```
+
+**Clarify strategy**:
+```markdown
+**Response**: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We would like to
+respectfully clarify that [existing content description]. This is discussed in
+[specific location: Section X, page Y, paragraph Z]. To make this clearer,
+we have [improvement action].
+```
+
+**Experiment strategy**:
+```markdown
+**Response**: We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We have
+conducted additional experiments on [experiment description]. The results show
+that [key findings with numbers]. These new results have been added to [Table/
+Figure/Section location] and discussed in [Section].
+```
+
+**Combination strategies** (e.g., Accept + Experiment, Clarify + Accept):
+Combine templates naturally, addressing each aspect in sequence.
+
+**Tone rules** (apply to all responses):
+- Always begin with gratitude: "We thank the reviewer for..."
+- Use "We" not "I"
+- Never say "The reviewer is wrong/misunderstood/failed to notice"
+- For misunderstandings: "We apologize for the confusion" or "We would like to respectfully clarify"
+- Provide specific location references (Section, page, Table, Figure)
+- Avoid arrogant words: "Obviously", "Clearly", "It is well-known"
+- Keep responses substantive (not just "Fixed" or "Done")
+
+### Step 4.4: Write Summary of Major Changes
+
+After all point-by-point responses, add a summary section:
+
+```markdown
+## Summary of Major Changes
+
+In response to the reviewers' feedback, we have made the following major
+revisions:
+
+1. **[Change category]** (Reviewers [X, Y]) -- [Brief description]
+2. **[Change category]** (Reviewer [Z]) -- [Brief description]
+3. ...
+
+We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and
+addressed all concerns raised by the reviewers.
+```
+
+### Step 4.5: Assemble and Save Complete Rebuttal
+
+Assemble the full document in order:
+1. Opening statement
+2. Per-reviewer responses (Major comments first, then Minor)
+3. Summary of major changes
+4. Closing statement
+
+**For venues with page limits** (e.g., CVPR one-page limit):
+- Prioritize critical and high-priority responses
+- Condense minor issue responses
+- Remove redundant acknowledgments
+- Use concise formatting
+
+Save to: `{OUTPUT_DIR}/rebuttal-response.md`
+
+**Quality checklist before saving**:
+- [ ] Every reviewer comment has a response
+- [ ] All responses begin with gratitude
+- [ ] No arrogant or defensive language
+- [ ] Specific location references provided
+- [ ] Changes section included for each response
+- [ ] Venue formatting requirements met
+- [ ] Summary of major changes present
+- [ ] Reviewer numbering preserved correctly
+
+## Output
+
+- **File**: `rebuttal-response.md` in the designated output directory
+- **track_tasks**: Mark Phase 4 completed, Phase 5 in_progress
+
+## Next Phase
+
+Return to orchestrator, then auto-continue to [Phase 5: Revision](05-revision.md).

package/.agents/skills/scholar-review/phases/05-revision.md

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+# Phase 5: Revision
+
+Plan and track the paper revisions based on the rebuttal commitments, ensuring every promised change is implemented.
+
+## Objective
+
+- Create a revision plan mapping each rebuttal commitment to specific paper edits
+- Track completion of each revision item
+- Verify consistency between rebuttal promises and actual paper changes
+- Generate a revision summary for the authors
+
+## Execution
+
+### Step 5.1: Load Rebuttal Commitments
+
+Read the rebuttal document to extract all committed changes:
+
+```
+read_file({OUTPUT_DIR}/rebuttal-response.md)
+```
+
+Also load:
+- Response strategy: `read_file({OUTPUT_DIR}/response-strategy.md)`
+- Paper: `read_file(paperPath)`
+
+Parse every "Changes" entry from the rebuttal to build the revision list.
+
+### Step 5.2: Build Revision Plan
+
+Create a structured revision plan organized by paper section:
+
+For each committed change, create a revision item:
+
+```
+{
+  id: "REV-001",
+  source: "Comment 1.1",
+  type: "add_section" | "revise_text" | "add_experiment" | "add_figure" | "add_table" | "fix_typo" | "add_citation",
+  location: "Section X.Y, page Z",
+  description: "What to change",
+  currentContent: "Existing text (if revision)" | null,
+  targetContent: "Description of desired new content",
+  effort: "low | medium | high",
+  status: "pending"
+}
+```
+
+**Organize by paper section** for efficient editing:
+```
+Abstract:
+  - REV-003: Revise claims (Comment 1.5)
+
+Section 1 - Introduction:
+  - REV-007: Add motivation paragraph (Comment 2.1)
+
+Section 3 - Method:
+  - REV-001: Rewrite Section 3.2 for clarity (Comment 1.1)
+  - REV-004: Add algorithm pseudocode (Comment 1.1)
+
+Section 4 - Results:
+  - REV-002: Add comparison with Method X (Comment 1.2)
+  - REV-005: Add ablation study (Comment 2.3)
+
+Section 5 - Discussion:
+  - REV-006: Expand limitations (Comment 2.4)
+  - REV-008: Add broader impact (Comment 3.1)
+
+References:
+  - REV-009: Add missing citations (Comments 1.3, 3.2)
+
+Appendix:
+  - REV-010: Add detailed proofs (Comment 2.2)
+```
+
+### Step 5.3: Identify Dependencies and Order
+
+Determine revision order based on dependencies:
+
+- Content changes before formatting changes
+- New experiments before results discussion
+- Method revisions before results that reference them
+- Text additions before length/flow optimization
+
+Group into revision passes:
+1. **Pass 1**: Structural changes (add sections, reorganize)
+2. **Pass 2**: Content additions (experiments, figures, citations)
+3. **Pass 3**: Text revisions (clarity, claims, explanations)
+4. **Pass 4**: Polish (typos, formatting, consistency)
+
+### Step 5.4: Generate Revision Plan Document
+
+```markdown
+# Revision Plan
+
+## Paper: [Paper Title]
+## Date: [Date]
+## Based on: rebuttal-response.md
+
+## Revision Summary
+
+| Metric | Count |
+|--------|-------|
+| Total revision items | N |
+| High effort | N |
+| Medium effort | N |
+| Low effort | N |
+
+## Revision Items by Section
+
+### Abstract
+- [ ] **REV-003** [low]: Revise claims to avoid overclaiming (Comment 1.5)
+  - Current: "[current text]"
+  - Target: "[target description]"
+
+### Section 1: Introduction
+- [ ] **REV-007** [medium]: Add motivation paragraph (Comment 2.1)
+  - Location: After paragraph 2
+  - Target: "[description of content to add]"
+
+### Section 3: Method
+- [ ] **REV-001** [high]: Rewrite Section 3.2 for clarity (Comment 1.1)
+  - Current: "[current text summary]"
+  - Target: Add mathematical formulation, pseudocode, concrete example
+- [ ] **REV-004** [medium]: Add Algorithm 1 with pseudocode (Comment 1.1)
+  - Location: After Equation 3
+  - Target: Step-by-step pseudocode of the method
+
+[... continue for all sections]
+
+## Recommended Revision Order
+
+### Pass 1: Structural Changes
+1. REV-001: Rewrite Section 3.2
+2. REV-006: Expand limitations section
+3. REV-008: Add broader impact section
+
+### Pass 2: Content Additions
+1. REV-002: Add Method X comparison experiments
+2. REV-005: Add ablation study
+3. REV-010: Add detailed proofs to appendix
+
+### Pass 3: Text Revisions
+1. REV-003: Revise abstract claims
+2. REV-007: Add motivation paragraph
+3. REV-004: Add algorithm pseudocode
+
+### Pass 4: Polish
+1. REV-009: Add missing citations
+2. All typo fixes
+
+## Consistency Check
+
+Verify each rebuttal promise has a corresponding revision item:
+
+| Rebuttal Promise | Revision Item | Status |
+|-----------------|---------------|--------|
+| "Added to Table 3" | REV-002 | pending |
+| "Revised Section 3.2" | REV-001 | pending |
+| "Corrected all typos" | REV-011 | pending |
+| ... | | |
+
+## Notes for Authors
+
+- [Any special considerations]
+- [Items that need author judgment or additional data]
+- [Timeline recommendations]
+```
+
+Save to: `{OUTPUT_DIR}/revision-plan.md`
+
+## Output
+
+- **File**: `revision-plan.md` in the designated output directory
+- **track_tasks**: Mark Phase 5 completed
+
+## Next Phase
+
+This is the final phase. Return to orchestrator with completion summary listing all generated documents:
+- `self-review-report.md` (if pre-submission mode)
+- `review-analysis.md` (if post-review mode)
+- `response-strategy.md` (if post-review mode)
+- `rebuttal-response.md` (if post-review mode)
+- `revision-plan.md` (if post-review mode)

package/.agents/skills/scholar-review/specs/tone-guidelines.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# Tone Guidelines for Rebuttal Writing
+
+Reference document for maintaining professional academic tone in review responses.
+
+## Core Principles
+
+1. **Always thank**: Every response begins with gratitude
+2. **Stay respectful**: Even when the reviewer is wrong
+3. **Be objective**: Use fact-based, evidence-supported language
+4. **Be constructive**: Provide alternatives when disagreeing
+5. **Acknowledge weakness**: Honest about limitations
+
+## Expression Reference
+
+### Gratitude Expressions
+
+| Context | Expression |
+|---------|------------|
+| General thanks | "We thank the reviewer for this comment/suggestion" |
+| Valuable insight | "We thank the reviewer for this valuable/insightful feedback" |
+| Important suggestion | "We thank the reviewer for this excellent/important suggestion" |
+| Error caught | "We thank the reviewer for catching this/pointing this out" |
+
+### Agreement Expressions
+
+| Context | Expression |
+|---------|------------|
+| Full agreement | "We agree that..." / "We concur with the reviewer that..." |
+| Partial agreement | "We agree that [part], however..." |
+| Acknowledge issue | "We acknowledge this limitation/concern" |
+| Accept suggestion | "We have adopted this suggestion" |
+
+### Disagreement Expressions (Polite)
+
+| Context | Expression |
+|---------|------------|
+| Polite disagreement | "We respectfully note that..." |
+| Provide rationale | "However, we chose [method] because..." |
+| Explain constraints | "While [suggestion] would be valuable, it is not feasible due to..." |
+| Offer alternative | "Instead, we have [alternative], which..." |
+
+### Clarification Expressions
+
+| Context | Expression |
+|---------|------------|
+| Point to existing | "We would like to clarify that..." |
+| Admit unclear writing | "We apologize for the confusion. What we meant is..." |
+| Provide location | "This is discussed in Section X (page Y)" |
+| Improve wording | "To make this clearer, we have..." |
+
+## Prohibited Expressions
+
+- "The reviewer is wrong"
+- "The reviewer misunderstood"
+- "The reviewer failed to notice"
+- "This is obvious"
+- "Clearly..."
+- "It is well-known that..."
+- "Everyone knows..."
+- "Done." / "Fixed." (too terse)
+
+## Tone Checklist
+
+### Must Include
+- [ ] Every response starts with thanks
+- [ ] Use "We" not "I"
+- [ ] Specific location references (Section, page, Table, Figure)
+- [ ] Concrete improvement actions stated
+- [ ] Professional and respectful throughout
+
+### Must Avoid
+- [ ] No "reviewer is wrong" phrasing
+- [ ] No arrogant vocabulary
+- [ ] No defensive or aggressive tone
+- [ ] No vague promises without specifics
+- [ ] No skipped comments

package/.agents/skills/scholar-thesis-docx/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.