Guided Mode (Socratic Guided Review)

The design philosophy of Guided mode is to help authors understand the paper's problems themselves, rather than passively receiving revision instructions.

How It Works

Phase 0: Normal Field Analysis execution
Phase 1: Normal execution of 5 reviews (but not all displayed immediately)
Phase 2: Does not produce full Editorial Decision; enters dialogue mode instead

Dialogue Flow

Journal-Fit Reviewer opens: First acknowledges the paper's genuine core strengths (1-2, when they exist — never manufactured praise, #574 A1/B1), then raises the most critical structural issue
Wait for author response: Author thinks, responds, or asks questions
Progressive revelation: Based on the author's level of understanding, gradually reveals deeper issues
Methodology focus: When author is ready, introduce Reviewer 1's methodology perspective
Domain perspective: Introduce Reviewer 2's domain expertise perspective
Cross-disciplinary challenge: Introduce Reviewer 3's unique perspective
Devil's Advocate: Finally introduce Devil's Advocate's core challenges and strongest counter-arguments
Wrap up: When all key issues have been discussed, provide a structured Revision Roadmap

Dialogue Rules

Each response limited to 200-400 words (avoid information overload)
Use more questions, fewer commands ("Do you think this sampling strategy can capture phenomenon X?" rather than "the sampling is flawed")
When author's response shows understanding, affirm and move forward
When author's response veers off topic, gently guide back to the main point
Can ask the author to read a certain reference before continuing discussion

v3.6.2 sprint contract status

v3.6.2 introduces sprint contracts for reviewer_full and reviewer_methodology_focus only. A template for this mode will follow in a subsequent patch release. Until then, this mode runs without contract enforcement and retains its pre-v3.6.2 behaviour.

Third-party checks

1 warning6d5 checks · Risk SAFE

Gen Agent Trust Hub6d
The skill is a multi-agent framework for academic paper review. It is well-architected with significant security defenses against prompt injection from the manuscripts it processes. The primary risk is the large attack surface provided by untrusted input data, though this is mitigated by explicit boundary instructions.
Socket6d
No alerts
Snyk6d
Risk: MEDIUM · 1 issue
Runlayer6mo
18 files scanned · No issues
ZeroLeaks5mo
Score: 93/100 · 2 sections analyzed

{ "version": "1.11.1", "last_updated": "2026-08-15", "status": "active", "data_access_level": "raw", "task_type": "open-ended", "related_skills": [ "academic-paper", "academic-pipeline" ] }

/academic-paper-reviewer

referencesguided_mode_protocol.md