1. Parse feedback into discrete, actionable items
2. Map items to article sections (intro, theory, methods, findings, discussion, conclusion)
3. Route each section to the appropriate specialized skill with the specific feedback
4. Track progress and ensure coherence across revisions
5. Verify all feedback has been addressed

• A completed draft (or substantial sections) of a manuscript
• Feedback from reviewers, editors, colleagues, or self-assessment
• Sections that were written (or could have been written) using skills like

  lit-writeup

  ,

  methods-writer

  ,

  interview-bookends

  , or

  case-justification

1. The manuscript (complete draft or relevant sections)
2. The feedback (any format: bulleted, prose, structured)
3. Supporting materials (if available):
   • Original research question and argument
   • Data/analysis files
   • Prior versions (for tracking changes)

1. Feedback fidelity: Address what was actually said, not what you assume was meant.
2. Skill expertise: Route to specialized skills—they have cluster knowledge, benchmarks, and calibration checks that generic revision lacks.
3. Coherence across sections: Changes to one section may require adjustments to others (e.g., intro changes may break conclusion callbacks).
4. Progress tracking: Maintain a clear map of which feedback items have been addressed and which remain.
5. Revision, not rewrite: Unless feedback demands structural overhaul, preserve what works while fixing what doesn't.

• Read the full manuscript (or available sections)
• Read the feedback carefully
• Parse feedback into discrete items (one issue per item)
• Categorize each item by type:
  • Structural: Architecture, organization, missing sections
  • Substantive: Argument, evidence, interpretation
  • Methodological: Methods justification, credibility, transparency
  • Stylistic: Word count, repetition, clarity
  • Coherence: Cross-section alignment, promise-delivery match
• Map each item to the section it addresses
• Identify which skills are relevant for each section
• Create the Revision Task List

revision-map.md

Pause: User confirms feedback parsing and skill routing.

• For each section mapped to a specialized skill:
  • Identify the relevant cluster/pathway (using skill's Phase 0 logic)
  • Assess current draft against cluster benchmarks
  • Determine issue severity (minor calibration vs. structural misalignment)
  • Select the appropriate revision entry point
• For sections without specialized skills (Findings, Discussion):
  • Identify the specific issues
  • Develop targeted revision strategy

revision-map.md

Pause: User confirms diagnostic assessment and revision strategy.

1. The existing section text (what needs revision)
2. The specific feedback items (what needs to change)
3. The identified cluster/pathway (from diagnostic)
4. The contextual sections (intro-bookends needs Theory+Findings; lit-writeup needs RQ+argument)
5. Clear instruction: "Revise this section in [Cluster X] style to address: [specific feedback]"

• [ ]

  Pending

• [~]

  In progress

• [x]

  Addressed

• [!]

  Needs user decision

revision-map.md

Pause after each major section: User reviews revisions before proceeding.

• Intro → Findings/Discussion: Do intro promises match what's delivered?
• Theory → Findings: Do theoretical concepts appear in findings analysis?
• Methods → Findings: Do methods support the claims made?
• Intro → Conclusion: Are there callbacks? Does the conclusion answer the intro's question?
• Terminology: Is key language consistent throughout?
• Citation: Are sources cited consistently?

• If intro promises changed, may need to adjust conclusion
• If theory framing changed, may need to revise findings language
• Use

  interview-bookends

  Phase 3 for intro/conclusion coherence specifically

Pause: User confirms cross-section coherence.

• Review all feedback items against final revised text
• Verify each item is marked

  [x]

  or has documented reason for

  [!]

• Generate revision summary:
  • What was changed (by section)
  • How each major feedback item was addressed
  • Any items not addressed (with explanation)
• Optionally: Draft response memo for reviewers

revision-summary.md

"The intro is too long and repetitive—you have two intros. Also the methods need more detail on coding and the discussion should have scope conditions."

1. [Intro] Length: Intro too long
2. [Intro] Structure: Two intros detected (repetition)
3. [Methods] Credibility: More detail on coding needed
4. [Discussion] Scope: Add scope conditions

• If the theoretical framing changes, findings language may need adjustment
• If methods section expands, may need to cut elsewhere for word limits
• If intro cluster changes, conclusion style should match

• Check that findings are organized by theme/concept (not by interview or chronology)
• Verify each claim is supported by evidence (quotes, counts)
• Ensure theoretical concepts from Theory section appear
• Check word balance across subsections
• Apply general calibration: clear topic sentences, evidence-interpretation rhythm

• Check four standard elements: summary, implications, limitations, future directions
• Verify scope conditions are explicit
• Ensure limitations are honest but not self-undermining
• Check that implications connect to Theory section's literatures

1. Keep ONE intro (usually the first)
2. Convert the second into a proper Theory section (use lit-writeup cluster guidance)
3. Run interview-bookends Phase 3 for coherence check

1. Re-run methods-writer Phase 0 to confirm pathway
2. If pathway should change, redraft with new word allocation
3. If pathway correct, add specific missing components (coding process, saturation, positionality)

1. Use lit-writeup Phase 4 (Turn) specifically
2. Ensure turn appears at subsection transition, not buried
3. Check that "what we don't know" is specific, not generic

1. Decide which is right: the promise or the delivery
2. If delivery is right, revise intro to match (interview-bookends Phase 1)
3. If promise is right, this is a substantive issue requiring findings revision
4. Run interview-bookends Phase 3 for coherence verification

• Don't over-revise: Fix what feedback identifies; preserve what works.
• Track everything: The revision map is your accountability document.
• Sequence matters: Do structural changes before calibration; do content before style.
• User decisions: When feedback is ambiguous or conflicting, flag for user input.
• Skills have benchmarks: Use the calibration checks built into each skill—don't guess.
• Coherence is a system property: Changes to one section affect others.

1. Ask for the manuscript:

   "Please share your manuscript (or the sections you want revised). I need to see the current state."

2. Ask for the feedback:

   "Please share the feedback you've received. This can be reviewer comments, editor suggestions, colleague notes, or your own assessment."

3. Ask about priorities:

   "Is there anything you specifically agree or disagree with in the feedback? Any constraints (word limits, sections that can't change, etc.)?"

4. Proceed with Phase 0 to parse and map the feedback.