psyclaw 0.27.22 → 0.28.0

package/vendor/ars/academic-pipeline/examples/full_pipeline_example.md

@@ -0,0 +1,482 @@
+# Example: Full Pipeline Conversation Log
+
+## Scenario Description
+
+**User type**: Master's student in Education, first time writing an academic paper
+**Topic**: The impact of declining birthrate on enrollment strategies of private universities in Taiwan
+**Goal**: Complete a submission-ready IMRaD paper
+**Language**: Traditional Chinese (bilingual abstract)
+
+---
+
+## User Input
+
+```
+I want to write a paper on the impact of declining birthrate on enrollment
+strategies of private universities in Taiwan. Help me from start to finish.
+This is my first time writing an academic paper and I'm not sure about the process.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Pipeline Execution Log
+
+### Orchestrator: Launch Detection
+
+```
+Detection results:
+- Materials: None (starting from scratch)
+- Goal: Full workflow
+- Entry point: Stage 1 (RESEARCH)
+- User preference: First time writing a paper --> recommend guided mode
+
+Recommended Pipeline Configuration:
+
+  Stage 1 RESEARCH: socratic -- First time doing research, Socratic guidance to help you think through
+  Stage 2 WRITE:    plan     -- Chapter-by-chapter guidance to plan your paper structure
+  Stage 3 REVIEW:   full     -- Complete 5-person review (Journal-Fit Reviewer + R1/R2/R3 + Devil's Advocate), simulating real submission experience
+  Stage 4 REVISE:   revision -- Item-by-item revision based on review comments
+  Stage 5 FINALIZE: format   -- Convert to your desired format (LaTeX/DOCX via Pandoc/PDF)
+
+You can adjust any stage's mode at any time. Ready to begin?
+```
+
+**User**: Yes, let's start!
+
+---
+
+### Stage 1: RESEARCH (socratic mode)
+
+```
+Entering Stage 1 (RESEARCH) -- using deep-research socratic mode
+
+Loading deep-research SKILL.md...
+Launching socratic_mentor_agent...
+```
+
+**Socratic Mentor**: You mentioned "the impact of declining birthrate on private university enrollment strategies." Before we begin, I'd like to understand a few things:
+
+1. Why are you interested in this topic? Did you observe some phenomenon?
+2. When you say "enrollment strategies," what kind are you thinking of? Online marketing? Scholarships? Program adjustments? Or all of the above?
+
+**User**: I've noticed that many private universities are starting to do things they wouldn't have done before, like hosting information sessions at high schools, lowering admission thresholds, and opening many new programs. I want to know if these strategies actually work.
+
+**Socratic Mentor**: Great observation. You mentioned three types of strategies: outreach activities, admission standard adjustments, and new program establishment.
+
+Let me follow up: What do you mean by "actually work"? Higher freshmen enrollment rate? Maintaining student quality? The school surviving? Different definitions of "working" lead to completely different research questions.
+
+**User**: I think the most important thing is the freshmen enrollment rate — if you can't recruit students, nothing else matters.
+
+**Socratic Mentor**:
+[INSIGHT: Research focus = actual effectiveness of enrollment strategies on freshmen enrollment rate]
+
+Good. Let's go deeper. If your research conclusion is "certain strategies can indeed improve enrollment rates," who would find this useful? Private university presidents? Ministry of Education policymakers? Or parents of high school students?
+
+Different target audiences will significantly change how you write your paper.
+
+**User**: Primarily for university administrators, so they know which strategies are worth investing in.
+
+*(Socratic dialogue continues for 8 rounds, covering 5 Layers...)*
+
+**Socratic Mentor -- Final Summary**:
+
+```
+Research Plan Summary
+
+Research question:
+  Under the declining birthrate trend, what is the impact of enrollment
+  strategies (outreach activities, admission standard adjustments, new
+  program establishment) adopted by private universities in Taiwan on
+  freshmen enrollment rates? Which strategies are most effective for
+  different types of private universities (general/technical-vocational)?
+
+Methodology:
+  Mixed Methods
+  - Quantitative: Ministry of Education open data analysis (academic years 109-113)
+  - Qualitative: In-depth interviews with enrollment directors at 3-5 private universities
+
+Target journal level: TSSCI
+
+Extracted INSIGHTs (8):
+  [INSIGHT 1] Research focus = actual effectiveness of enrollment strategies on freshmen enrollment rate
+  [INSIGHT 2] Target audience = university administrators
+  [INSIGHT 3] Three strategy dimensions: outreach, admission standards, program adjustment
+  [INSIGHT 4] Need control variables: school geographic location, school size, tuition level
+  [INSIGHT 5] Method choice: mixed methods (quantitative trends + qualitative context)
+  [INSIGHT 6] Quantitative data source: MOE University Information Disclosure Platform
+  [INSIGHT 7] Major limitation: cannot obtain individual schools' marketing budget data
+  [INSIGHT 8] Research contribution: provide evidence-based strategy recommendations for resource-limited private universities
+```
+
+Then bibliography_agent executes literature search, source_verification_agent verifies sources...
+
+**Stage 1 Deliverables:**
+- RQ Brief (with FINER scoring)
+- Methodology Blueprint (mixed methods design)
+- Annotated Bibliography (22 references, APA 7.0)
+- Synthesis Report (thematic synthesis + research gaps)
+
+---
+
+### Orchestrator: Stage 1 --> 2 Transition
+
+```
+Stage 1 (RESEARCH) Complete!
+
+Deliverables:
+- RQ Brief: Focused on three enrollment strategies' impact on enrollment rates at private universities
+- Methodology Blueprint: Mixed methods (quantitative MOE data + qualitative interviews)
+- Annotated Bibliography: 22 references (17 Chinese + 5 English)
+- Synthesis Report: Identified 3 research gaps
+
+Next step is Stage 2 (WRITE).
+Since this is your first time writing a paper, I recommend plan mode (chapter-by-chapter guidance).
+After completing the outline, we'll switch to full mode to produce the complete draft.
+
+Continue?
+
+Progress: [v]Research -> [..]Writing -> [ ]Review -> [ ]Revision -> [ ]Finalization
+```
+
+**User**: Continue!
+
+---
+
+### Stage 2: WRITE (plan --> full mode)
+
+```
+Entering Stage 2 (WRITE) -- using academic-paper plan mode
+
+Loading academic-paper SKILL.md...
+handoff materials: RQ Brief + Bibliography + Synthesis
+intake_agent auto-detected deep-research output, skipping redundant Phase 0 questions
+Launching socratic_mentor_agent (plan mode)...
+```
+
+**Plan Mode Mentor**: I've reviewed your Research Plan Summary. The research question is clear. Let's plan the paper chapter by chapter. Starting with the Introduction.
+
+What sense of urgency do you want the reader to feel? In other words, why should the reader read this paper right now?
+
+**User**: Because the declining birthrate is already happening — many universities might close within 5 years.
+
+**Plan Mode Mentor**: Good. Your Introduction opening could use a specific number to convey urgency. Do you know how many private universities have closed or suspended enrollment in the past 5 years?
+
+*(Plan mode dialogue continues for 12 rounds, covering 6 chapters...)*
+
+**Plan Mode Complete --> Switch to full mode**
+
+```
+Chapter Plan complete. Switching to full mode to write the complete draft.
+
+academic-paper draft_writer_agent writing based on Chapter Plan...
+citation_compliance_agent verifying citations...
+abstract_bilingual_agent writing bilingual abstract...
+```
+
+**Stage 2 Deliverables:**
+- Paper Draft (5,200 words, IMRaD structure, with bilingual abstract)
+
+---
+
+### Orchestrator: Stage 2 --> 3 Transition
+
+```
+Stage 2 (WRITE) Complete!
+
+Deliverables:
+- Paper Draft: 5,200-word IMRaD paper
+  - Abstract (Chinese 420 words + English 230 words)
+  - Introduction: Research background and problem statement
+  - Literature Review: Three themes (birthrate trends, enrollment strategy classification, effectiveness evaluation)
+  - Methodology: Mixed methods design
+  - Results: Quantitative findings + qualitative themes
+  - Discussion: Strategy effectiveness comparison + policy recommendations
+  - References: 22 entries (APA 7.0)
+
+Next step is Stage 3 (REVIEW).
+Using full mode, simulating a complete five-seat review process: four configured scoring identities plus the fixed Devil's Advocate.
+After review, an Editorial Decision and Revision Roadmap will be produced.
+
+Continue?
+
+Progress: [v]Research -> [v]Writing -> [..]Review -> [ ]Revision -> [ ]Finalization
+```
+
+**User**: OK, review it for me.
+
+---
+
+### Stage 3: REVIEW (full mode)
+
+```
+Entering Stage 3 (REVIEW) -- using academic-paper-reviewer full mode
+
+Loading academic-paper-reviewer SKILL.md...
+Passing Paper Draft to reviewer...
+field_analyst_agent analyzing paper domain...
+```
+
+**Field Analysis Results:**
+```
+Paper domain: Education Policy / Higher Education Management
+Research paradigm: Pragmatism (mixed methods)
+Method type: Quantitative (secondary data analysis) + Qualitative (interviews)
+
+Reviewer Configuration:
+  Journal-Fit Reviewer (serialized source ID EIC):
+              Journal of Education Policy Editor, specializing in economics of education
+  Reviewer 1: Quantitative methods expert, specializing in education statistics and large database analysis
+  Reviewer 2: Higher education management scholar, specializing in university governance and enrollment policy
+  Reviewer 3: Demographer, specializing in declining birthrate and labor market, interdisciplinary perspective
+  Fixed seat: Devil's Advocate, challenging the core argument and strongest counter-explanations
+```
+
+*(All 5 role-separated seats review without peer-output access before commitment... editorial_synthesizer_agent compiles...)*
+
+**Editorial Decision: Major Revision**
+
+```
+Required Revisions:
+R1: [Methodology] Quantitative analysis lacks control variables (school size, geographic location)
+    -- Reviewer 1, Priority 1
+R2: [Literature]  Literature review missing the most recent 2024-2026 studies
+    -- Reviewer 2, Priority 1
+R3: [Results]     Qualitative interviews with only 3 schools, sample representativeness insufficient
+    -- Reviewer 1 & 3 consensus, Priority 2
+R4: [Discussion]  Conclusions too general, need to differentiate between general/technical-vocational universities
+    -- Reviewer 2, Priority 2
+R5: [Introduction] Research gap argumentation not sharp enough, needs more specific data support
+    -- EIC, Priority 3
+```
+
+**Stage 3 Deliverables:**
+- 5 role-separated review reports (Journal-Fit Reviewer + R1/R2/R3 + Devil's Advocate)
+- Typed six-axis Review Panel Provenance receipt; no binary independence claim
+- Editorial Decision Letter: Major Revision
+- Revision Roadmap (5 required items + 3 suggested modifications)
+
+---
+
+### Orchestrator: Stage 3 --> 4 Transition
+
+```
+Stage 3 (REVIEW) Complete!
+
+Review result: Major Revision
+  - 5 required revision items
+  - 3 suggested modification items
+  - Most critical issues: control variables in quantitative analysis + literature update
+
+Next step is Stage 4 (REVISE).
+I'll pass the Revision Roadmap to academic-paper revision mode,
+guiding you through item-by-item revision.
+
+After revision, we'll enter Stage 3' (RE-REVIEW) to confirm quality.
+Maximum 2 revision cycles.
+
+Ready to start revision?
+
+Progress: [v]Research -> [v]Writing -> [v]Review -> [..]Revision -> [ ]Finalization
+```
+
+**User**: Start revision.
+
+---
+
+### Stage 4: REVISE (revision mode, Round 1)
+
+```
+Entering Stage 4 (REVISE) -- using academic-paper revision mode
+
+Loading academic-paper SKILL.md (revision mode)...
+Passing Paper Draft + Revision Roadmap...
+peer_reviewer_agent monitoring revision quality...
+```
+
+**Revision Progress Tracking:**
+```
+R1: [v] Added control variables (school size, geographic location, tuition level)
+R2: [v] Supplemented 2024-2026 literature (added 8 new citations)
+R3: [v] Added explanation of qualitative sampling strategy (purposive sampling rationale)
+R4: [v] Separated general/technical-vocational university analysis results, added comparison table
+R5: [v] Rewrote Introduction paragraphs 2-3, added school closure data
+```
+
+**Stage 4 Deliverables:**
+- Revised Draft (6,800 words, 1,600 words more than original)
+- Response to Reviewers (R-A-C format, point-by-point response)
+- Apply report sidecar (`<output>.apply-report.json`, #390 — retained beside the Revised Draft; transferred to Stage 3' as untouched-block evidence)
+
+---
+
+### Orchestrator: Stage 4 --> 3' Transition
+
+```
+Stage 4 (REVISE) Complete! Revision round: Round 1
+
+Revision results:
+- 5/5 required items all addressed
+- Paper expanded from 5,200 to 6,800 words
+- Added 8 new 2024-2026 citations
+- Added general/technical-vocational university comparison table
+- Response to Reviewers completed
+
+Next step is Stage 3' (RE-REVIEW).
+Using re-review mode to verify the revisions against the Round-1 Roadmap.
+This is revision cycle 1 (max 2 cycles).
+
+Submit for re-review?
+
+Progress: [v]Research -> [v]Writing -> [v]Review -> [v]Revision -> [..]Re-review -> [ ]Finalization
+```
+
+**User**: Submit for re-review.
+
+---
+
+### Stage 3': RE-REVIEW (re-review mode, Loop 1)
+
+```
+Entering Stage 3' (RE-REVIEW) -- Loop 1/2
+
+Loading academic-paper-reviewer SKILL.md (re-review mode)...
+Passing Revised Draft + Response to Reviewers + Editorial Decision Letter (#539 Judge Record input) + Round-1 Revision Roadmap + apply report(s) (#390) + Round-1 Reviewer Configuration Cards (yardstick continuity)...
+Journal-Fit Reviewer verifying each roadmap item (Round-1 reviewer configuration reused — field_analyst not re-run)...
+```
+
+**Editorial Decision: Minor Revision**
+
+```
+R1 response: [v] Adequately addressed, control variable analysis complete
+R2 response: [v] Literature update sufficient
+R3 response: [v] Sampling strategy explanation acceptable, but recommend adding a limitation statement
+R4 response: [v] Comparative analysis clear, but Discussion final paragraph could be further refined
+R5 response: [v] Introduction improvement significant
+
+New suggestions:
+S1: Recommend refining Discussion final paragraph, focusing on policy recommendations
+S2: Recommend moving sampling limitation statement to Methodology Limitations section
+```
+
+**Editorial Synthesizer**: Revision quality is good. Remaining issues are all minor. Recommend Accept with Minor Revision.
+
+---
+
+### Orchestrator: Stage 3' --> 5 Transition
+
+```
+Stage 3' (RE-REVIEW) Complete!
+
+Review result: Minor Revision (Accept direction)
+  - All required items passed
+  - 2 remaining small suggested modifications (non-blocking)
+
+Since this is Minor Revision (not Major), we can proceed directly to Stage 5 (FINALIZE).
+Minor changes will be handled during the formatting process.
+
+What format do you need for the final version?
+  a) LaTeX (.tex + .bib) -- suitable for TSSCI journal submission
+  b) DOCX -- suitable for internal school review
+  c) PDF -- suitable for sharing
+  d) All of the above
+
+Progress: [v]Research -> [v]Writing -> [v]Review -> [v]Revision -> [v]Re-review -> [..]Finalization
+```
+
+**User**: All of the above.
+
+---
+
+### Stage 5: FINALIZE (format-convert mode)
+
+```
+Entering Stage 5 (FINALIZE) -- using academic-paper format-convert mode
+
+Loading academic-paper SKILL.md (format-convert mode)...
+Simultaneously handling 2 minor revision items...
+formatter_agent executing format conversion...
+```
+
+**Stage 5 Deliverables:**
+- `declining_birthrate_private_university.tex` + `.bib` (LaTeX version)
+- `declining_birthrate_private_university.docx` (DOCX version)
+- `declining_birthrate_private_university.pdf` (PDF version)
+- `declining_birthrate_private_university.md` (Markdown original)
+
+---
+
+### Orchestrator: Pipeline Complete
+
+```
++=========================================+
+|   Academic Pipeline Status              |
++=========================================+
+| Topic: Impact of Declining Birthrate on |
+|        Private University Enrollment    |
+|        Strategies in Taiwan             |
++-----------------------------------------+
+
+  Stage 1 RESEARCH    [v] Completed
+    Mode: socratic
+    Outputs: RQ Brief, Methodology,
+             Bibliography (22 sources),
+             Synthesis
+
+  Stage 2 WRITE       [v] Completed
+    Mode: plan -> full
+    Outputs: Paper Draft
+             (5,200 words, IMRaD)
+
+  Stage 3 REVIEW      [v] Completed
+    Mode: full
+    Decision: Major Revision
+    Required Revisions: 5 items
+
+  Stage 4 REVISE      [v] Completed
+    Revision Round: 1
+    Addressed: 5/5 required revisions
+
+  Stage 3' RE-REVIEW  [v] Completed
+    Loop: 1/2
+    Decision: Minor Revision (Accept)
+
+  Stage 5 FINALIZE    [v] Completed
+    Formats: LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, Markdown
+
++-----------------------------------------+
+| Materials:                              |
+|   [v] RQ Brief                          |
+|   [v] Methodology Blueprint             |
+|   [v] Bibliography (30 sources)         |
+|   [v] Synthesis Report                  |
+|   [v] Paper Draft                       |
+|   [v] Review Reports (4)               |
+|   [v] Revision Roadmap                  |
+|   [v] Revised Draft                     |
+|   [v] Response to Reviewers             |
+|   [v] Final Paper (4 formats)           |
++-----------------------------------------+
+| Revision History:                       |
+|   Round 1: Major -> 5/5 items addressed |
+|   RE-REVIEW: Minor Revision (Accept)    |
++-----------------------------------------+
+| Pipeline Complete!                      |
+| Final paper: 6,800 words, IMRaD        |
+| Citations: 30 (APA 7.0)               |
+| Abstract: Chinese 420 words +          |
+|           English 230 words            |
++=========================================+
+
+Congratulations on completing your paper! It's ready for submission.
+
+Final deliverables:
+1. LaTeX version: declining_birthrate_private_university.tex
+2. DOCX version: declining_birthrate_private_university.docx
+3. PDF version: declining_birthrate_private_university.pdf
+4. Original: declining_birthrate_private_university.md
+
+If you later need to:
+- Revise again --> just say "revise the paper" (triggers academic-paper revision mode)
+- Create a presentation --> say "make slides" (triggers notebooklm-slides-generator)
+- Convert to a website --> say "make an interactive webpage" (triggers report-to-website)
+```