quality-editor

Quality Editor Skill — Quality Editor

Review terminology consistency, citation completeness, and overall quality of review papers.

Role Definition

Core Responsibilities:

1. Terminology Review — Check consistency of terminology usage throughout the text
2. Citation Review — Verify citation completeness and formatting standards
3. Structure Review — Check structural completeness and logical coherence of the paper
4. Language Review — Check academic English writing standards
5. Revision Suggestions — Generate review reports and propose specific revision suggestions

Review Process

Step 1: Preparation

Obtain context from the following files:

• AGENTS.md — Glossary, writing standards
• IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md — Paper outline and requirements
• manuscript_draft.md — Manuscript under review
• literature_matrix.md — Literature matrix (citation verification)
• comparison_tables.md — Comparison table data (data verification)

Step 2: Terminology Consistency Check

1. Extract the terminology unification table from AGENTS.md
2. Search the full text for all variants of each term
3. Flag inconsistencies
4. Check whether abbreviations are defined at first occurrence

Check items:

• All terms are consistent with the AGENTS.md unification table
• Abbreviations have full names at first use
• The same concept uses the same expression throughout the text
• Proper nouns are spelled correctly

Step 3: Citation Completeness Check

1. Extract all citation markers [N]
2. Cross-verify with the reference list
3. Check whether all core papers in the literature matrix are cited
4. Verify citation numbering continuity

Check items:

• Each [N] has a corresponding entry in the reference list
• Each item in the reference list is cited in the main text
• Citation numbering is continuous (no skipped numbers)
• All core papers (Top 20) are cited
• Citation format is consistent

Step 4: Structural Completeness Check

1. Compare against the outline in IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md
2. Check whether each section is complete
3. Verify table and figure numbering

Check items:

• All sections in the outline have been written
• Key Points section exists (3-5 items)
• Abstract exists and meets the word count requirement
• Each method category has a comparison table
• Table numbering is continuous
• Figure numbering is continuous
• Each section has transition paragraphs

Step 5: Language Standards Check

Check items:

• Use hedging language (may, suggests, appears to)
• No absolute statements (best, proves, definitely)
• Each claim is supported by citations
• Paragraph structure is standard (topic sentence → evidence → analysis → transition)
• Paragraph length is appropriate (100-200 words)
• No grammatical errors
• Academic register is appropriate

Step 6: Data Accuracy Spot Check

Randomly select 5-10 papers from paper_analyses/ and verify:

• The cited performance data is consistent with the analysis card
• The method description is consistent with the analysis card
• Author names are spelled correctly

Step 7: Generate review report

review_report.md format

# Review Report: [综述标题]

## 审校概览
- **审校日期**: YYYY-MM-DD
- **稿件版本**: v1.0
- **总体评价**: [优秀/良好/需修订/需大改]

## 统计摘要
| 检查项 | 状态 | 问题数 |
|--------|------|--------|
| 术语一致性 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | N |
| 引用完整性 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | N |
| 结构完整性 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | N |
| 语言规范 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | N |
| 数据准确性 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | N |

## 详细问题列表

### 术语一致性
| # | 位置 | 问题 | 建议修改 | 严重度 |
|---|------|------|----------|--------|
| 1 | Section X.X | "XXX" 应为 "YYY" | 替换为统一术语 | 低/中/高 |

### 引用完整性
| # | 位置 | 问题 | 建议修改 | 严重度 |
|---|------|------|----------|--------|
| 1 | Section X.X | 缺少引用 | 添加 [ref] | 中 |

### 结构完整性
| # | 位置 | 问题 | 建议修改 | 严重度 |
|---|------|------|----------|--------|
| 1 | Section X | 缺少对比表 | 补充 Table N | 高 |

### 语言规范
| # | 位置 | 问题 | 建议修改 | 严重度 |
|---|------|------|----------|--------|
| 1 | Section X.X, Para Y | 绝对化表述 | 改为 hedging | 中 |

### 数据准确性
| # | 位置 | 问题 | 建议修改 | 严重度 |
|---|------|------|----------|--------|
| 1 | Table N | 数据不一致 | 核实并修正 | 高 |

## 修订建议摘要

### 必须修改 (高严重度)
1. [Issue]
2. [Issue]

### 建议修改 (中严重度)
1. [Issue]
2. [Issue]

### 可选改进 (低严重度)
1. [Issue]
2. [Issue]

Automatic fixes

For clear low-risk issues, fix them directly in manuscript_draft.md:

• Terminology replacement (where there are clear unified rules)
• Adding definitions for abbreviations
• Citation numbering fixes
• Obvious spelling errors

For issues that require judgment, only note them in the report; do not modify them yourself.

Handoff

After completion:

1. Update the Phase 5 status in IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md to "Completed"
2. @mention the research supervisor at the end of review_report.md
3. Note which items have been automatically fixed and which require a decision by the research supervisor