wtf-p 0.1.0

package/commands/wtfp/review-section.md

@@ -0,0 +1,409 @@
+---
+name: wtfp:review-section
+description: Run 3-layer verification on written sections
+argument-hint: "[section]"
+allowed-tools:
+  - Read
+  - Bash
+  - Write
+  - Glob
+  - Grep
+  - AskUserQuestion
+---
+
+<objective>
+User acceptance testing of written sections with configurable reviewer personas.
+
+Runs 3-layer verification:
+1. Citation Check (Mechanical)
+2. Argument Coherence (Logical)
+3. Rubric Check (Requirements)
+
+**Reviewer Personas** adjust critique intensity and focus:
+- Reviewer #2 (Hostile): Nitpicky, finds every flaw, assumes bad faith
+- Area Chair (Big Picture): Strategic, focuses on contribution significance
+- Camera-Ready Editor (Nitpicky): Formatting, style, polish details
+- Friendly Mentor (Constructive): Balanced, actionable suggestions
+
+Creates ISSUES.md if problems found.
+
+User performs verification; Claude guides and documents.
+</objective>
+
+<execution_context>
+@~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/workflows/review-section.md
+</execution_context>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="verify">
+**Verify section exists:**
+
+```bash
+# Check for written content
+ls paper/*.md 2>/dev/null || echo "No content in paper/ directory"
+
+# Check for SUMMARY indicating writing complete
+ls .planning/sections/*/SUMMARY.md 2>/dev/null | head -5
+```
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="load">
+**Load context for review:**
+
+- Read the written section content (paper/[section].md)
+- Read PROJECT.md for requirements
+- Read argument-map.md for expected claims
+- Read outline.md for structure expectations
+- Read sources/literature.md for citation expectations
+- Read SUMMARY.md for what was intended
+</step>
+
+<step name="select_persona">
+**Select reviewer persona:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Reviewer"
+- question: "What type of review do you want?"
+- options:
+  - "Reviewer #2 (Hostile)" — Nitpicky, assumes worst, finds every flaw
+  - "Area Chair (Big Picture)" — Strategic focus on contribution and impact
+  - "Camera-Ready Editor" — Formatting, style, polish, consistency
+  - "Friendly Mentor" — Balanced, constructive, actionable (Recommended)
+
+**Persona behaviors:**
+
+### Reviewer #2 (Hostile)
+- Questions every claim without citation
+- Assumes methodology is flawed until proven
+- Finds ambiguity in clear statements
+- Demands more experiments/evidence
+- Tone: "The authors fail to..." / "It is unclear why..."
+- Severity bias: Escalates minor issues to major
+
+### Area Chair (Big Picture)
+- Focuses on: Is the contribution significant?
+- Asks: Would this paper advance the field?
+- Checks: Is the evaluation convincing for the claims made?
+- Less concerned with minor formatting
+- Tone: "The main contribution..." / "The significance..."
+- Severity bias: Ignores minor, focuses on blockers
+
+### Camera-Ready Editor
+- Formatting consistency (headings, spacing, fonts)
+- Figure/table placement and references
+- Citation style compliance
+- Grammar, typos, awkward phrasing
+- LaTeX/formatting warnings
+- Tone: "Line X has..." / "Figure Y should..."
+- Severity bias: Many minor issues
+
+### Friendly Mentor
+- Balanced critique with encouragement
+- Every criticism paired with suggestion
+- Prioritizes actionable feedback
+- Acknowledges what works well
+- Tone: "Consider..." / "This works well, but could be stronger if..."
+- Severity bias: Realistic assessment
+
+Store selected persona for use in all verification steps.
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="citation_check">
+**Layer 1: Citation Check (Mechanical)**
+
+Adjust intensity based on persona:
+
+**If Reviewer #2 (Hostile):**
+```
+## Citation Check (Hostile Mode)
+
+I'm looking for EVERY missing citation:
+
+- [ ] ALL factual claims have citations (even "obvious" ones)
+- [ ] Claims of novelty properly qualified
+- [ ] No weasel words hiding missing citations ("studies show...", "it is known...")
+- [ ] Self-citation ratio appropriate (not self-promotional)
+- [ ] Recent work cited (nothing newer doing this?)
+- [ ] Foundational work cited (did you read the classics?)
+
+**Potential issues I see:**
+[Claude actively identifies potential issues in hostile mode]
+```
+
+**If Area Chair:**
+```
+## Citation Check (Strategic)
+
+Focus on citation credibility:
+
+- [ ] Key claims backed by strong citations
+- [ ] Methodology citations are appropriate
+- [ ] Comparison baselines properly cited
+- [ ] Not over-citing tangential work
+
+**Big picture:**
+```
+
+**If Camera-Ready Editor:**
+```
+## Citation Check (Formatting)
+
+- [ ] Citation format consistent throughout ([N] vs (Author, Year))
+- [ ] All citations resolve in bibliography
+- [ ] No duplicate entries
+- [ ] Citation style matches venue requirements
+- [ ] Page numbers where required
+```
+
+**If Friendly Mentor:**
+```
+## Citation Check
+
+Let's make sure your citations are solid:
+
+- [ ] Factual claims have citations
+- [ ] Format is consistent
+- [ ] Bibliography is complete
+
+**What's working well:** [note positives]
+**Suggestions:**
+```
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Citations"
+- question: "Any citation issues found?"
+- options:
+  - "All clear" — Citations look good
+  - "Issues found" — I'll list them
+  - "Skip this check" — Move to next layer
+
+If issues found, prompt for details.
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="coherence_check">
+**Layer 2: Argument Coherence (Logical)**
+
+Adjust intensity based on persona:
+
+**If Reviewer #2 (Hostile):**
+```
+## Argument Coherence (Hostile Mode)
+
+I'm stress-testing your logic:
+
+- [ ] Every claim PROVEN, not just stated
+- [ ] Assumptions explicitly stated and justified
+- [ ] Alternative explanations addressed
+- [ ] Limitations acknowledged (or I'll find them)
+- [ ] No logical leaps ("clearly" / "obviously" hiding weak reasoning)
+- [ ] Statistics interpreted correctly
+- [ ] Causation vs correlation distinguished
+
+**Logical weaknesses I see:**
+[Claude actively identifies logical gaps in hostile mode]
+
+**Questions a hostile reviewer would ask:**
+- "How do you know X causes Y?"
+- "What about alternative explanation Z?"
+- "Your sample size is only N..."
+```
+
+**If Area Chair:**
+```
+## Argument Coherence (Strategic)
+
+Does the argument support a strong contribution?
+
+- [ ] Core thesis is clear and significant
+- [ ] Evidence supports the main claims
+- [ ] Contribution is differentiated from prior work
+- [ ] Limitations don't undermine the contribution
+
+**Strategic assessment:**
+```
+
+**If Camera-Ready Editor:**
+```
+## Argument Coherence (Light Touch)
+
+Basic logical flow:
+
+- [ ] Paragraphs in logical order
+- [ ] Transitions present
+- [ ] No obvious contradictions
+```
+
+**If Friendly Mentor:**
+```
+## Argument Coherence
+
+Let's strengthen your argument:
+
+- [ ] Claims follow from evidence
+- [ ] Logic flows naturally
+- [ ] Counter-arguments addressed
+
+**Strengths:** [what's working]
+**Opportunities:** [where to strengthen]
+```
+
+**Cross-reference with argument-map.md:**
+- [ ] Claim 1 addressed: [yes/no/partial]
+- [ ] Claim 2 addressed: [yes/no/partial]
+- [ ] ...
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Coherence"
+- question: "Any logical/flow issues found?"
+- options:
+  - "All clear" — Logic flows well
+  - "Issues found" — I'll list them
+  - "Skip this check" — Move to next layer
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="rubric_check">
+**Layer 3: Rubric Check (Requirements)**
+
+Present checklist based on PROJECT.md requirements:
+
+```
+## Rubric Check
+
+Review against requirements:
+
+**Structure:**
+- [ ] All required elements present
+- [ ] Follows expected structure (IMRaD, etc.)
+- [ ] Appropriate for target venue
+
+**Length:**
+- [ ] Word count: [current] / [target] ([variance]%)
+- [ ] Within acceptable range
+
+**Formatting:**
+- [ ] Heading levels correct
+- [ ] Figure/table references correct
+- [ ] Consistent style throughout
+
+**Content Requirements:**
+- [ ] [Requirement 1 from PROJECT.md]: [met/not met]
+- [ ] [Requirement 2 from PROJECT.md]: [met/not met]
+
+**Issues found:**
+```
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Requirements"
+- question: "Any requirement issues found?"
+- options:
+  - "All clear" — Requirements met
+  - "Issues found" — I'll list them
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="issues">
+**Create ISSUES.md if problems found:**
+
+```markdown
+---
+section: XX-name
+plan: YY
+review_date: [date]
+---
+
+# Review Issues: [Section Name]
+
+## Reviewer Persona: [Selected Persona]
+
+## Citation Issues
+| ID | Issue | Severity | Location |
+|----|-------|----------|----------|
+| CIT-1 | [description] | [Major/Minor] | [line/para] |
+
+## Coherence Issues
+| ID | Issue | Severity | Location |
+|----|-------|----------|----------|
+| COH-1 | [description] | [Major/Minor] | [line/para] |
+
+## Requirement Issues
+| ID | Issue | Severity | Requirement |
+|----|-------|----------|-------------|
+| REQ-1 | [description] | [Major/Minor] | [which req] |
+
+## Summary
+- Total issues: [N]
+- Blockers (must fix): [N]
+- Major (should fix): [N]
+- Minor (nice to fix): [N]
+
+---
+*Reviewed: [date]*
+```
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="commit">
+```bash
+git add .planning/sections/XX-name/XX-YY-ISSUES.md
+git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
+review(XX-YY): [section name] verification
+
+Issues found: [N] ([blockers] blockers)
+EOF
+)"
+```
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="done">
+**Present results:**
+
+```
+Review complete:
+
+- Section: [name]
+- Issues: .planning/sections/XX-name/XX-YY-ISSUES.md
+
+## Summary
+- Citation check: [pass/issues]
+- Coherence check: [pass/issues]
+- Rubric check: [pass/issues]
+
+Total: [N] issues ([blockers] blockers, [major] major, [minor] minor)
+
+---
+
+## ▶ Next Up
+
+[If issues found:]
+**Plan revisions** — address identified issues
+
+`/wtfp:plan-revision XX-YY`
+
+[If no issues:]
+**Continue** — move to next section
+
+`/wtfp:plan-section [next]`
+
+<sub>`/clear` first → fresh context window</sub>
+
+---
+```
+
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- [ ] Reviewer persona selected
+- [ ] All 3 verification layers executed (intensity adjusted to persona)
+- [ ] User guided through each check
+- [ ] Issues documented in ISSUES.md with persona noted
+- [ ] Severity levels assigned (persona-appropriate)
+- [ ] Clear next steps provided
+</success_criteria>

package/commands/wtfp/submit-milestone.md

@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
+---
+name: wtfp:submit-milestone
+description: Archive completed submission round
+argument-hint: "[version]"
+allowed-tools:
+  - Read
+  - Bash
+  - Write
+  - AskUserQuestion
+---
+
+<objective>
+Archive a completed draft or submission round.
+
+Creates MILESTONES.md entry with stats.
+Archives full details to milestones/ directory.
+Creates git tag for the version.
+Prepares workspace for revision round.
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="verify">
+**Verify paper is ready:**
+
+```bash
+[ ! -f .planning/STATE.md ] && echo "ERROR: No project state found" && exit 1
+```
+
+Check completion status:
+- Are all planned sections written?
+- Any unresolved blockers?
+
+If incomplete:
+```
+WARNING: Not all sections are complete.
+
+Sections remaining:
+- [Section N]: [status]
+- [Section M]: [status]
+
+Continue anyway?
+```
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Proceed?"
+- question: "Archive milestone with incomplete sections?"
+- options:
+  - "Yes, archive anyway" — Create milestone as-is
+  - "No, finish first" — Return to writing
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="gather_stats">
+**Gather statistics:**
+
+- Total sections: [N]
+- Sections complete: [M]
+- Total words: [X]
+- Target words: [Y]
+- Word variance: [+/- Z%]
+- Citations used: [N]
+- Figures: [N]
+- Tables: [N]
+- Issues resolved: [N]
+- Issues deferred: [N]
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="milestone_entry">
+**Create/update MILESTONES.md:**
+
+```markdown
+# Milestones
+
+## [version] - [Name/Description]
+
+**Date:** [date]
+**Status:** [Submitted / Draft / Ready for Review]
+
+### Summary
+[Brief description of what this version represents]
+
+### Stats
+- Sections: [M]/[N] complete
+- Words: [X] / [Y] target
+- Citations: [N]
+- Figures: [N]
+
+### Sections Included
+| Section | Words | Status |
+|---------|-------|--------|
+| Introduction | [X] | Complete |
+| Methods | [X] | Complete |
+| ... | | |
+
+### Key Decisions
+[Major decisions made in this version]
+
+### Known Issues
+[Issues deferred to next version]
+
+### Git Reference
+- Tag: `[version]`
+- Commit: [hash]
+
+---
+
+[Previous milestones below...]
+```
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="archive">
+**Create milestone archive:**
+
+```bash
+mkdir -p .planning/milestones
+```
+
+Copy current state to archive:
+- `.planning/milestones/[version]-ROADMAP.md`
+- `.planning/milestones/[version]-STATE.md`
+- Snapshot of all SUMMARY.md files
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="tag">
+**Create git tag:**
+
+```bash
+git add .planning/MILESTONES.md .planning/milestones/
+git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
+milestone: [version] - [name]
+
+Words: [X]
+Sections: [M]/[N]
+Status: [status]
+EOF
+)"
+
+git tag -a "[version]" -m "[Milestone description]"
+```
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="prepare_next">
+**Prepare for next round:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Next Steps"
+- question: "What's next after this milestone?"
+- options:
+  - "Wait for reviews" — Pause until feedback
+  - "Start revisions" — Begin revision round
+  - "Done for now" — Just archive
+
+If "Start revisions":
+- Reset STATE.md position to first section
+- Note that this is revision round
+- Suggest `/wtfp:progress` to start
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="done">
+**Present completion:**
+
+```
+Milestone archived:
+
+- Version: [version]
+- Entry: .planning/MILESTONES.md
+- Archive: .planning/milestones/[version]-*
+- Git tag: [version]
+
+## Summary
+- Sections: [M]/[N] complete
+- Words: [X] / [Y]
+- Status: [status]
+
+---
+
+## ▶ Next Up
+
+[Based on user's choice:]
+
+**Wait for reviews:**
+When you receive reviewer feedback:
+`/wtfp:import-reviews` (coming soon)
+
+**Start revisions:**
+`/wtfp:progress` — check what needs revision
+
+**Done for now:**
+Your work is archived. Run `/wtfp:progress` when ready to continue.
+
+---
+```
+
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- [ ] Completion status verified
+- [ ] Statistics gathered
+- [ ] MILESTONES.md updated
+- [ ] Archive created
+- [ ] Git tag created
+- [ ] Next steps clear
+</success_criteria>