# How the REVIEW Stage in the ARS Pipeline Operates: Architecture, Process, and Modes

> Explore the REVIEW stage in the ARS pipeline. Learn about its architecture, multi-phase peer review process, and six operational modes, including Sprint Contract enforcement and Editorial Decision Letters.

- Repository: [Edward Cheng-I Wu/academic-research-skills](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills)
- Tags: deep-dive
- Published: 2026-05-13

---

**The REVIEW stage in the ARS pipeline is a multi-phase peer review simulation driven by the `academic-paper-reviewer` skill that enforces a Sprint Contract gate before executing parallel agent reviews across six operational modes, culminating in an Editorial Decision Letter.**

The Academic Research Skills (ARS) pipeline implements a structured approach to academic manuscript development, with the REVIEW stage serving as the critical first editorial decision point. This stage leverages the `academic-paper-reviewer` skill (v1.9.0) to simulate multi-perspective peer review through specialized AI agents. According to the Imbad0202/academic-research-skills repository, this stage operates through a rigorous three-phase process with a hard gate mechanism that ensures reviewer commitment before manuscript exposure.

## Architecture and Orchestration

The REVIEW stage (Stage 3) represents the first **editorial decision point** in the pipeline workflow.

The `academic-pipeline` orchestrator hands the completed manuscript—produced by the WRITE stage—to the reviewer skill. This hand-off is recorded in the pipeline matrix defined in [`docs/ARCHITECTURE.md`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/docs/ARCHITECTURE.md) (lines 98-104). Before any reviewer accesses the paper, the system enforces a **Sprint Contract** (Schema 13) through [`scripts/check_sprint_contract.py`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/scripts/check_sprint_contract.py), creating a hard gate that guarantees reviewers commit to a scoring plan while the paper remains blind.

## The Three-Phase Review Process

The REVIEW stage executes through three distinct phases, each handled by specialized agents:

### Phase 0: Field Analysis

The `field_analyst_agent` analyzes the manuscript to infer discipline, methodology, and target journal. This agent creates a **Reviewer Configuration Card** containing five reviewer personas that the user can confirm or adjust. This configuration step ensures the subsequent review panel matches the paper's specific academic domain.

### Phase 1: Parallel Review

Seven agents execute **independently** in parallel:
- `eic_agent` (Editor-in-Chief)
- `methodology_reviewer_agent`
- `domain_reviewer_agent`
- `perspective_reviewer_agent`
- `devils_advocate_reviewer_agent`
- `editorial_synthesizer_agent` (read-only)

Each agent produces a structured report using templates stored in `academic-paper-reviewer/templates/`. The parallel execution ensures diverse perspectives without cross-contamination during the initial review phase.

### Phase 2: Synthesis and Decision

The `editorial_synthesizer_agent` merges the individual reports (five or fewer depending on mode) and applies a three-step mechanical protocol. This phase emits an **Editorial Decision Letter** classifying the manuscript as Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, accompanied by a detailed **Revision Roadmap**.

This decision triggers a **decision-heavy checkpoint** where the user must confirm the Editorial Decision before the pipeline proceeds to the REVISE stage, as documented in the architecture table ([`ARCHITECTURE.md`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/ARCHITECTURE.md), lines 21-28).

## Six Operational Modes

The `academic-paper-reviewer` supports six operational modes that determine which agents execute and what artefacts are produced. The mode is selected automatically from user prompts or forced via CLI flags.

**`full` (default)**

- **When to use**: First-time, pre-submission review
- **Agents**: All 7 agents (5 reviewers + synthesizer)
- **Output**: 5 review reports, Editorial Decision, and Revision Roadmap

**`re-review`**

- **When to use**: Stage 3′ verification after author revisions
- **Agents**: `field_analyst_agent`, `eic_agent`, `editorial_synthesizer_agent` (narrow team)
- **Output**: Verification package with response checklist and residual-issues list

**`quick`**

- **When to use**: Fast-track sanity check (approximately 15 minutes)
- **Agents**: `field_analyst_agent`, `eic_agent` only
- **Output**: Concise EIC assessment and key-issue list

**`methodology-focus`**

- **When to use**: Deep check of methods and statistics
- **Agents**: `field_analyst_agent`, `eic_agent`, `methodology_reviewer_agent`
- **Output**: Two-reviewer panel (EIC + methodology) with detailed methodology report

**`guided`**

- **When to use**: Interactive Socratic review (author-led)
- **Agents**: All agents plus Socratic dialogue capability
- **Output**: Review reports and guided dialogue transcript

**`calibration`**

- **When to use**: One-off accuracy measurement against gold standard papers
- **Agents**: All 7 agents (run × 5 per gold paper)
- **Output**: Calibration Report with FNR/FPR metrics and confidence disclosure

## Command-Line Usage Examples

Execute the REVIEW stage using the `ars-full` CLI wrapper with mode-specific flags:

```bash

# Run complete pipeline stopping at REVIEW decision checkpoint

ars-full --stop-after review

```

```bash

# Execute REVIEW stage in full mode (first submission)

ars-full --stage review --mode full

```

```bash

# Quick review for rapid assessment

ars-full --stage review --mode quick

```

```bash

# Post-revision verification review

ars-full --stage re-review

```

```bash

# Inspect the Sprint Contract for a full review

cat shared/contracts/reviewer/full.json

```

## Key Implementation Files

| File | Purpose |
|------|---------|
| [`docs/ARCHITECTURE.md`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/docs/ARCHITECTURE.md) | Stage 3 matrix and decision-heavy checkpoint definitions (lines 96-105) |
| [`academic-paper-reviewer/SKILL.md`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/academic-paper-reviewer/SKILL.md) | Complete reviewer skill documentation and mode specifications |
| [`shared/sprint_contract.schema.json`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/shared/sprint_contract.schema.json) | JSON Schema defining the hard gate requirements |
| [`scripts/check_sprint_contract.py`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/scripts/check_sprint_contract.py) | Validator enforcing sprint contract compliance |
| [`academic-paper-reviewer/templates/peer_review_report_template.md`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/academic-paper-reviewer/templates/peer_review_report_template.md) | Canonical structure for reviewer reports |
| [`academic-paper-reviewer/templates/editorial_decision_template.md`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/academic-paper-reviewer/templates/editorial_decision_template.md) | Layout for Editorial Decision Letters |
| [`commands/ars-full.md`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/commands/ars-full.md) | CLI wrapper implementing pipeline orchestration flags |

## Summary

- The **REVIEW stage** is Stage 3 of the ARS pipeline, serving as the first editorial decision point using the `academic-paper-reviewer` skill.
- A **Sprint Contract** gate enforced by [`scripts/check_sprint_contract.py`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/scripts/check_sprint_contract.py) ensures blind review commitment before manuscript exposure.
- The three-phase process includes **Field Analysis**, **Parallel Review** (7 agents), and **Synthesis & Decision**.
- Six operational modes (**`full`**, **`re-review`**, **`quick`**, **`methodology-focus`**, **`guided`**, **`calibration`**) adapt the review intensity to submission requirements.
- The stage concludes with an **Editorial Decision Letter** and **Revision Roadmap**, requiring user confirmation at a decision-heavy checkpoint before proceeding to revision.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What triggers the REVIEW stage to begin in the ARS pipeline?

The REVIEW stage initiates when the `academic-pipeline` orchestrator completes the hand-off from the WRITE stage, passing the finalized manuscript to the `academic-paper-reviewer` skill. This transition is recorded in the pipeline matrix within [`docs/ARCHITECTURE.md`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/docs/ARCHITECTURE.md), specifically at the Stage 3 entry. The orchestrator only proceeds after verifying that the Sprint Contract has been established via [`scripts/check_sprint_contract.py`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/scripts/check_sprint_contract.py).

### How does the Sprint Contract gate ensure review integrity?

The Sprint Contract acts as a **hard gate** requiring reviewers to commit to a scoring plan before accessing the manuscript. Implemented through Schema 13 and enforced by [`scripts/check_sprint_contract.py`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/scripts/check_sprint_contract.py), this mechanism ensures the review remains blind and that reviewers cannot adjust their evaluation criteria after seeing the paper. The contract is stored in `shared/contracts/reviewer/` and must be validated before Phase 0 execution.

### Can I run multiple review modes sequentially on the same manuscript?

Yes. The pipeline supports iterative review cycles. After completing a **`full`** review and implementing revisions, you can trigger a **`re-review`** (Stage 3′) to verify changes using `ars-full --stage re-review`. This mode narrows the agent panel to focus specifically on whether revision requests have been adequately addressed, producing a verification package with a traceability matrix.

### Where are the reviewer report templates defined?

Each reviewer agent follows a canonical structure defined in [`academic-paper-reviewer/templates/peer_review_report_template.md`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/academic-paper-reviewer/templates/peer_review_report_template.md). The `editorial_synthesizer_agent` uses [`academic-paper-reviewer/templates/editorial_decision_template.md`](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/blob/main/academic-paper-reviewer/templates/editorial_decision_template.md) to format the final decision letter. These templates ensure consistency across the five parallel reviews regardless of which operational mode is active.