Paper Revision

# Paper Revision Prompts

Extracted from AI-Scientist (perform_improvement) and AgentLaboratory (report_refinement).

## Concern Classification

```
For each reviewer comment, classify as:

| Type | Description | Priority |
|------|-------------|----------|
| Major Revision | Fundamental flaw, missing experiment, wrong methodology | P0 |
| Minor Revision | Clarity issues, missing details, presentation | P1 |
| Question | Reviewer seeks clarification | P2 |
| Suggestion | Nice-to-have improvement | P3 |
```

## Revision Planning Template

```
For each concern:

Concern: [Extracted reviewer concern]
Type: [Major/Minor/Question/Suggestion]
Affected Section(s): [Section name(s)]
Required Action: [Clarification/Experiment/Analysis/Structural/Citation]
Plan:
  - Step 1: ...
  - Step 2: ...
New Content Needed: [Yes/No - describe if yes]
```

## Revision Execution (AgentLaboratory)

### Full Pipeline Re-run
When a major revision requires new experiments:
```
1. Save current state:
   prev_code = current_code
   prev_results = current_results
   prev_paper = current_paper

2. Inject reviewer feedback as notes:
   notes += "Reviewer requested: {concern}"

3. Re-run affected phases:
   - If new experiment needed: re-run experiment phase
   - If new analysis needed: re-run analysis phase
   - Always re-run writing phase for affected sections

4. Compare new vs previous:
   - Score improvement: new_score - prev_score
   - Verify concern addressed
```

## Targeted Edit Prompts

### For Clarification Concerns
```
The reviewer found this passage unclear:
"{original_text}"

Their comment: "{reviewer_comment}"

Rewrite the passage to address the reviewer's concern.
Keep the same meaning but improve clarity.
Mark revised text with \textcolor{blue}{...}.
```

### For Missing Experiment Concerns
```
The reviewer requests: "{reviewer_comment}"

Current experimental setup: {current_setup}
Available resources: {resources}

Design a new experiment to address this concern:
1. What to test
2. Expected outcome
3. How to present results (table/figure)
```

### For Citation Concerns
```
The reviewer suggests citing: "{suggested_area}"

Search for relevant papers and add citations.
Integrate citations naturally into the text.
Do not just add a parenthetical — explain the connection.
```

## Change Marking

```latex
% Use blue text for all revisions
\usepackage{xcolor}
\newcommand{\revision}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}

% Example usage:
\revision{We additionally evaluate on the CIFAR-100 dataset
to address the reviewer's concern about generalization.}
```

## Revision Verification Checklist

```
After all revisions:
[ ] Every reviewer concern has been addressed
[ ] All revised text is marked in blue
[ ] New results are from actual experiments (not fabricated)
[ ] Page count still fits venue requirements
[ ] No new LaTeX errors introduced
[ ] All new citations are in .bib file
[ ] Self-review score improved or maintained
[ ] Revision summary cross-references every concern
```

## Revision Summary Template

```
# Revision Summary

## Changes Overview
- N sections modified
- M new experiments added
- K new figures/tables added

## Detailed Changes

### Reviewer 1, Concern 1 (Major)
**Concern**: [what they said]
**Action**: [what we did]
**Location**: Section X, paragraph Y
**New content**: [brief description]

### Reviewer 1, Concern 2 (Minor)
...

## Score Comparison
| Metric | Before | After |
|--------|--------|-------|
| Overall | 5 | 7 |
| Clarity | 6 | 8 |
| ...    | ... | ... |
```


---
name: paper-revision
description: Revise papers based on reviewer feedback. Map reviewer concerns to specific sections, apply targeted edits, run additional experiments if needed, and verify improvements. Use after receiving peer review with revision requests.
argument-hint: [reviews-or-draft]
---

# Paper Revision

Systematically revise papers based on reviewer feedback.

## Input

- `$0` — Reviewer comments/feedback
- `$1` — Current paper draft (main.tex or paper director