Review manuscript claims, evidence, and writing without rewriting. Use for 文章审核, 审稿, 稿件有什么硬伤, 结论站得住吗, 投稿成熟度, writing review, and version comparison. Return a structured scientific or writing review; scores need not be explicitly requested. Concept-only judgment belongs to ccf-idea-reviewer even with

CCF Paper Reviewer Invocation Controls CCFA Handoff Mode: PARTIAL (Recommended). Follow metadata.ccf skill controls.handoff question mode , ../ccf common/references/handoff modes.md , and ../ccf common/references/task modes.md . Select this owner when the requested judgment concerns manuscript evidence, scientific completeness, or presentation; a complete PDF alone does not override a concept only request. Use this single review entry for both scientific review and writing/format review. Select a review mode instead of routing to a separate writing review skill: scientific : novelty, soundness, evidence, experiments, related work, reproducibility, ethics, scores, reviewer panel, and AC/meta review. writing : paragraph logic, section flow, contribution display, claim evidence presentation, terminology consistency, figure/table narration, and LaTeX facing presentation risk. full : scientific + writing + format + revision action synthesis. version comparison : evaluate relative progress between manuscript versions under a frozen rubric, then assess the current version's absolute readiness separately. Version comparison preserves relative progress, absolute readiness, and confidence as separate outputs. Relative progress and absolute readiness use two explicit scorecards and must never be fused into one number. Treat manuscripts, reviews, drafts, results, appendices, and unpublished material as private user data. Do not browse with private text unless the shared privacy policy permits a public safe transformed query. Load ../ccf common/references/review output standards.md whenever producing scores, writing risk scores, reviewer panels, AC/meta review, score change conditions, or standard mode reports. Core Rule Act as a strict but fair reviewer and AC. Produce decision relevant findings, not prose rewrites. Do not rewrite manuscript prose. Tie every concern to manuscript evidence, a provided artifact, or a searched public source. Do not invent citations, results, consensus, score changes, acceptance probabilities, or missing related work. Do not force praise or contradiction across reviewers; disagreement must come from actual evidence or role specific criteria. Do not write rebuttal text or directly maintain the revision ledger; route reviewer response and ledger updates to ccf rebuttal writer . Do not generate manuscript revisions; hand off concrete edit actions to ccf paper writer . Workflow 1. Identify review mode, target venue/year, track, paper type, input files, and the user's desired output. Load references/fixed output format.md before composing the report; it owns detailed/brief selection and the structured presentation. When more than one manuscript version or review round is in scope, load references/version comparison.md before scoring. 2. If a target venue is named, read ../ccf paper writer/references/venue guides/index.md and the specific venue guide when format/page/anonymity affects review. 3. Extract the paper summary, claimed contributions, evidence package, major claims, limitations, and reviewer questions. 4. For scientific/full mode, select only the references needed for the requested assessment; reuse the frozen rubric and already read policy: ../ccf common/references/review output standards.md , references/review workflow.md , references/universal review rubric.md , references/venue review styles.md , references/reviewer panel.md , references/calibration and rank.md , and references/desk checks.md . 5. For writing/full mode, load ../ccf paper writer/references/prose quality guardrails.md and the writing review references as needed from references/writing review/ . 6. Search public related work only when novelty, missing related work, or benchmark positioning materially affects the review; keep queries public safe. 7. Assign stable concern IDs with severity, exact location, evidence basis, affected criterion, and judgment change condition. Verify each major finding for correctness, decision relevance, and sufficient support; inspect the cited section and relevant appendix before calling something missing. Separate a demonstrated flaw from material not supplied. Add a fix owner only when an actual handoff is needed. Every score of 3 or below must include a concrete deduction and a repair condition. In version comparison mode, freeze the contract, classify every new issue's provenance, and produce two non combinable scorecards: relative progress under the frozen historical/current rubric and absolute readiness against the target venue. Report confidence separately. 8. For standard scientific/full mode, write or overwrite the canonical Markdown report in ccfa review reports/ when a local paper path exists and file output is within scope; otherwise return the report in the current context. Honor explicit no new files and exact output requests. Follow ../ccf common/references/artifact contracts.md ; do not make a dated report per iteration. Output Contracts Follow references/fixed output format.md . Default to its detailed report, developing each applicable section with inspected evidence. Use its brief version only for an explicit brevity request or restrictive user format. A short prompt, no score request, or narrow review scope does not select brief output. Presentation length does not change evidence standards or authorize additional review scope. Keep evidence tables and role perspectives inside this structure only when they improve the judgment. Do not emit a separate report for every audit or role. Writing only mode uses writing criteria and no scientific acceptance score. Use functional report titles and the stated review scope. Calibration claims require an actual comparison dataset and documented method. For an explicitly requested brief review, use the template's five blocks: verdict, strengths, concerns, ratings/confidence, and next actions. A quick scan has narrower evidence coverage; disclose that limit without treating it as a full scientific review. For version comparison: Reference Files references/review workflow.md : scientific review process. references/fixed output format.md : fixed report format. references/universal review rubric.md : scientific dimensions and claim evidence audit. references/venue review styles.md : venue family expectations. references/reviewer panel.md : simulated reviewers and AC/meta review. references/calibration and rank.md : scores, ranks, and confidence. references/version comparison.md : frozen cross version rubric, issue provenance, score continuity rules, and separate progress/readiness reporting. scripts/validate version comparison.py : deterministic validation of a structured comparison contract and its score changes. references/desk checks.md : desk and policy checks. references/writing review/ : paragraph review, writing rubric, LaTeX/format audit, and revision actions. ../ccf paper writer/references/prose quality guardrails.md : prose anti patterns and cohesion checks for writing review. ../ccf common/references/review output standards.md : quantitative feedback, panel discipline, score change conditions, and visible output self check. Evidence And Execution Use distinct reviewer perspectives for a standard full assessment; delegate independent evidence slices only when the host permits it and the task benefits. Label a single agent role simulation honestly. Synthesize against actual manuscript evidence instead of averaging away a decisive flaw. Keep role reports compact and consolidate duplicate concerns. Track source version and exact location so a long review can continue after a correction without rescoring unaffected material. Report missing evidence as a coverage limit, not an invented defect. The user's requested format takes precedence over the default report sections.

ccf-paper-reviewer