ARS-Codex workflows for research, academic writing, manuscript review, research-to-paper pipelines, and experiment planning. Use when the user asks for deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, research question refinement, academic paper drafting, paper revision, citation

ARS Codex This is a Codex adapter for the ARS suite. The vendored ARS content lives under ars/ ; keep it as source material and route through this file first. Versioning This Codex package is version 3.24.0 . The repo root VERSION , this SKILL.md metadata version, and manifest.json adapter version must match. Starting at 3.22.0 , this release number also matches the vendored ARS suite. The exact upstream version, tag, and commit are recorded in manifest.json ; historical 0.1.x package releases retain their original numbers. First Rule Do not load the whole suite by default. Select one workflow, read that workflow's WORKFLOW.md , then load only the agent, reference, template, or shared files needed for the user's current stage. The internal workflow entry files are named WORKFLOW.md , not SKILL.md , so Codex registers only this root router skill instead of exposing every vendored upstream workflow as a separate skill. Workflow Router Apply the routing core before choosing a workflow or dispatching an agent. The block is copied from ars/shared/references/routing core.md . Its upstream shared/ references resolve under this package's ars/ directory. Apply it to new requests; after compaction or resume, continue the settled workflow and perform the run ledger handoff check instead of routing the active run again. <! routing core:begin Step 0 — Escape hatch check (before any classification): If the user's first message begins with [direct mode] (case insensitive byte 0 token, optionally preceded by whitespace/newlines that are stripped on parse), record this fact, strip the prefix and surrounding whitespace from the message, and skip directly to Step 1 explicit intent handling on the stripped content. The literal [direct mode] is NOT passed through to the dispatched agent. If the stripped message itself has no clear skill named, Step 1 falls through to Step 3 clarification (the escape hatch bypasses cross phase clarification (Step 2), not all routing). When the token is honored and the named agent or skill needs inputs the message does not supply, read that agent's or skill's file and ask for what it requires, in its terms. A [direct mode] token after any other non whitespace character is not the escape hatch, even when the message asks to skip questions: classify the message through Steps 1 3 as if the token were absent, and do not forward the token. Without the byte 0 token, naming an agent is not explicit intent: such a message goes through Steps 1 3 like any other, so cross phase materials still get Step 2 clarification. Otherwise, classify the user's input: 1. Explicit clear intent — user invokes a specific skill via /ars slash command, or uses an unambiguous trigger keyword that maps to a single skill (e.g., "lit review this", "review my paper", "draft an abstract"): → Route directly; no clarification, no orchestrator detour. → The request stays explicit when the mode's usual input is absent or a word in it has other everyday senses. A revision request with no reviewer comments is revision mode's "feel certain sections need improvement" case, and "revisar artículo" is the reviewer's trigger. Route to that mode and let the mode handle what is missing; do not reopen the choice of workflow. 2. Cross phase materials detected — user provides artifacts spanning ≥ 2 pipeline phases without naming a specific skill (e.g., pre written abstract + pre collected literature; full draft + reviewer comments + bibliography): → Clarify . Do NOT auto route to a single phase agent. List candidate workflows as a d options in markdown body (NOT via AskUserQuestion tool). See shared/references/intent clarification protocol.md for the message template. → Reason: clarification is the safest action when materials don't unambiguously identify intent. (v3.10 active conductor ( 134) will handle this via structured intake; v3.9.2 asks.) 3. Ambiguous intent, no materials — user provides no artifacts and no clear request: → Clarify per shared/references/intent clarification protocol.md . Screening boundary (sr screener): a request to screen records the user already has (database exports, pasted abstracts, full text PDFs) against a review's eligibility criteria, or to build a screening protocol, pilot the screening, adjudicate screening conflicts, audit exclusions, or report the selection counts, routes to sr screener . A request to write a literature review, or to run a systematic review, meta analysis, or PRISMA report, does not route to sr screener . Screening starts only when the user asks for it: deep research systematic review mode may mention sr screener , but never hands over to it automatically. Anti pattern (caused 133): Receiving ambiguous cross phase materials and silently auto routing to a single phase agent based on which phase the materials "look closest to." This bypasses orchestrator level reconciliation and lets the subagent inherit the full ambiguity without independent oversight. <! routing core:end Choose the workflow by the settled intent: User intent Read first Deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta analysis, fact checking, research question refinement ars/deep research/WORKFLOW.md Academic paper writing, paper outline, abstract, revision, citation formatting, AI disclosure, LaTeX/DOCX/PDF formatting guidance ars/academic paper/WORKFLOW.md Paper review, peer review simulation, editorial decision, reviewer calibration, re review after revision ars/academic paper reviewer/WORKFLOW.md End to end research to paper pipeline, integrity gate, staged review/revision/finalization workflow ars/academic pipeline/WORKFLOW.md Explicit study selection: screening protocol, eligibility decisions on supplied records, pilot, conflicts, exclusion audit, screening counts ars/sr screener/WORKFLOW.md Experiment planning, code experiment execution plan, human study protocol, statistical interpretation, reproducibility validation ars/experiment agent/WORKFLOW.md An explicit end to end request selects academic pipeline . Materials spanning multiple phases without an explicit workflow require clarification using the core above; they do not by themselves select a pipeline. Study Screening Boundary Use ars/sr screener/WORKFLOW.md only for an explicit screening request. Its modes are protocol , quick , pilot , ta screen , ft screen , adjudicate , audit , and report . A whole systematic review, meta analysis, literature review, PRISMA report, or the presence of database exports does not activate screening. deep research may offer screening; academic pipeline never inserts it as an automatic stage. Accept its completed corpus through the Material Passport when the user requests a handoff. Read codex/agents/sr screener team.md and the selected mode's source prompts. A confirmed protocol precedes every decision; full runs retain human pilot, cost, QC, and final verification gates. In Codex, use emitted prompt files with fresh, blinded native workers when available; the upstream generated Claude Workflow script is not a native Codex executor. A/B workers never see each other's output. Without isolated workers, only disclosed quick single reviewer triage is available. Claude Sonnet/Opus screening defaults are not Codex model selections: preserve explicit supported user/runtime choices, record the actual model, and show the concrete estimate before fan out. Spanish Intent Routing Use the same intent boundaries as the vendored Spanish trigger phrases: Spanish intent Workflow and mode revisión de literatura / revisión sistemática / metaanálisis deep research : lit review / systematic review guía mi investigación / ayúdame a razonar deep research : socratic revisar artículo / revisa este artículo / revisión entre pares academic paper reviewer : full enmendar mi artículo / enmienda mi artículo academic paper : revision recibí comentarios de revisores / ruta de revisión academic paper : revision coach escribir resumen / verificar citas / convertir formato academic paper : abstract only / citation check / format convert artículo de revisión bibliográfica academic paper : lit review flujo de trabajo académico / investigación a artículo academic pipeline : pipeline Keep review and revision intent distinct. Apply topic scoping below to vague paper topics in Spanish too; an explicit research question permits direct planning. These activation phrases do not add supported output language pairs. Paper Topic Scoping Override Apply this override only after explicit aliases and unambiguous mode intent have been ruled out and cross phase ambiguity has been resolved. An explicit mode remains selected when its usual inputs are missing; ask for those inputs within the mode. An ars alias is never redirected by this override. If the user says they want to write a paper, thesis, proposal, article, journal article, or manuscript, but they only provide a broad topic, tentative title, research interest, or "題目/主題/方向" and do not provide a clear, answerable research question, route to ars/deep research/WORKFLOW.md in socratic mode first. This matches the upstream ARS experience where vague paper topic requests start with SCR/Socratic narrowing instead of immediate outline or drafting. Treat these as Socratic triggers even when the wording contains paper writing intent: "I want to write a paper on ..." "I have a paper topic/title ..." "我想做一篇論文，題目是..." "我有一個研究方向/主題，但還不確定問題" "幫我想論文題目/收斂研究問題" "논문을 쓰고 싶은데 연구 질문이 아직 명확하지 않아" "논문 주제/연구 방향은 있지만 무엇을 연구할지 모르겠어" First response in this path: 1. State that the request is being routed to deep research socratic mode because the research question is not yet precise. 2. Ask only the material narrowing questions needed now, using socratic mentor agent and research question agent guidance. 3. Do not produce an outline, draft, literature review, or full pipeline dashboard until the user has converged on at least one candidate RQ. Route directly to ars/academic paper/WORKFLOW.md only when the user already has a clear RQ, approved study frame, data/results, literature matrix, draft, or explicitly asks to skip scoping and proceed to outline/drafting. Route to ars/academic pipeline/WORKFLOW.md only when the user explicitly asks for the full research to paper pipeline or says to continue after Socratic scoping. Claude Style Alias Router Codex does not install Claude slash commands, but this package emulates their intent. If the user's request starts with a slash alias ( /ars plan ) or a plain alias ( ars plan ), treat it as a mode shortcut, strip the alias token from the task text, read the matching ars/commands/ars .md prompt recipe, then route to the workflow WORKFLOW.md below. An optional leading skill selector such as Use $academic research suite: ars plan ... is also accepted. The model: field in command frontmatter is a Claude routing hint only. Codex does not translate it into an Opus/Sonnet model pin. Apply the Codex model policy below and preserve explicit user or runtime model choices. Alias Read command recipe Then route to /ars plan , ars plan ars/commands/ars plan.md ars/academic paper/WORKFLOW.md in plan mode /ars outline , ars outline ars/commands/ars outline.md ars/academic paper/WORKFLOW.md in outline only mode /ars abstract , ars abstract ars/commands/ars abstract.md ars/academic paper/WORKFLOW.md in abstract only mode /ars lit review , ars lit review ars/commands/ars lit review.md ars/academic paper/WORKFLOW.md in lit review mode; ask for missing papers or offer source search within this mode /ars 3w , ars 3w ars/commands/ars 3w.md ars/deep research/WORKFL

academic-research-suite