Auto Review Loop: Autonomous Research Improvement

🔒 Do not wrap this skill in /loop, /schedule, or CronCreate. It already loops internally (review → fix → re-review) and the reviewer carries round-to-round memory in one threadId (codex-reply). An external timer re-enters from the top each tick — fresh threadId, reviewer memory reset — firing the verdict on wall-clock time instead of on artifact change: zero new signal, full token cost. If you want to schedule something, schedule the external wait that precedes it (experiments done → then run this once). See shared-references/external-cadence.md.

Autonomously iterate: review → implement fixes → re-review, until an independent reviewer gives a policy-approved positive assessment or MAX_ROUNDS is reached.

Context: $ARGUMENTS

Constants

• MAX_ROUNDS = 4
• POSITIVE_THRESHOLD: score >= 6/10 AND verdict ∈ {"ready", "almost"} — both must hold. This matches the operative Phase-E STOP CONDITION exactly; the verdict vocabulary is {"ready", "almost", "not ready"} (a high score with a "not ready" verdict does NOT stop the loop). Earlier wording here used or and a stale verdict set ("accept"/"sufficient"/"ready for submission") — that was an internal inconsistency; the AND form is authoritative.
• REVIEW_DOC: review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md (cumulative log) (fall back to ./AUTO_REVIEW.md for legacy projects)
• REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-6-astra — Default model for the Codex backend. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g., gpt-6-astra, o3, gpt-4o). Manual backend uses a model the user chooses — it must be a recognized model from a different family (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, Moonshot/Kimi, Qwen).
• REVIEWER_BACKEND — With no reviewer directive, start as auto; Step -1 runs exactly one two-call native marker/challenge probe for the first review. A bound Copilot CLI root session uses copilot-native (built-in complementary rubber-duck subagent); an unbound/non-Copilot host keeps the existing codex default. Explicit — reviewer: codex, oracle-pro, agy, or manual bypasses the probe and selects that external backend. Explicit — reviewer: copilot retains the compatibility copilot --agent drive mode and its later Codex/manual finalizer. The native path gets both actual model IDs from host session events; it never needs COPILOT_CLI or caller-provided --executor-model. See shared-references/reviewer-routing.md.
• OUTPUT_DIR = review-stage/ — All review-stage outputs go here. Create the directory if it doesn't exist.
• HUMAN_CHECKPOINT = false — When true, pause after each round's review (Phase B) and present the score + weaknesses to the user. Wait for user input before proceeding to Phase C. The user can: approve the suggested fixes, provide custom modification instructions, skip specific fixes, or stop the loop early. When false (default), the loop runs fully autonomously.
• COMPACT = false — When true, (1) read EXPERIMENT_LOG.md and findings.md instead of parsing full logs on session recovery, (2) append key findings to findings.md after each round.
• REVIEWER_DIFFICULTY = medium — Controls how adversarial the reviewer is. Three levels:
  • medium (default): Current behavior — MCP-based review, the executor controls what context the reviewer sees.
  • hard: Adds Reviewer Memory (the reviewer tracks its own suspicions across rounds) + Debate Protocol (the executor can rebut, the reviewer rules).
  • nightmare: Everything in hard + Codex exec reviewer reads the repo directly via codex exec (the executor cannot filter what the reviewer sees) + Adversarial Verification (the reviewer independently checks if code matches claims).
• RENDER_HTML = true — When true (default), auto-render review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md to HTML on loop termination via /render-html. Uses --no-review (the loop itself IS the cross-model review; the HTML is a structural conversion). Set false to skip, or pass — render html: false.

⚠️ Nightmare + Manual incompatibility: If REVIEWER_BACKEND = manual and REVIEWER_DIFFICULTY = nightmare, STOP with: "difficulty: nightmare requires Codex CLI / codex exec and is not compatible with --reviewer: manual. Use difficulty: hard, or switch reviewer to codex."

💡 Override: /auto-review-loop "topic" — compact: true, human checkpoint: true, difficulty: hard

Reviewer Calling Convention

When calling the reviewer, branch on REVIEWER_BACKEND:

If no --reviewer: directive was supplied: Set REVIEWER_BACKEND to auto. At Step -1 of the first round, resolve copilot_native_evidence.py using the canonical four-layer helper chain. Generate a fresh binding <run_id>_r<round>_review_<8-random-hex> and invoke marker, wait, then invoke challenge as two distinct root Bash calls. Put the literal binding and concrete resolved helper path in both calls; Copilot Bash calls do not share variables. If the challenge binds, set REVIEWER_BACKEND to copilot-native and use that same challenge for the first review. Do not issue a second activation challenge in Phase A. If it exits 3 because no current Copilot root session is bound, use codex. Explicit reviewer directives bypass this probe. If the helper is missing, native acceptance is unavailable; use Codex only if that external backend is positively available, otherwise emit REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE.

If REVIEWER_BACKEND = copilot-native: Read the challenge nonce and host-reported executor model. Invoke the host's native task tool with agent_type: rubber-duck; do not start a subprocess and do not specify a reviewer model. The prompt contains the exact standalone ARIS_REVIEW_NONCE=<nonce> line, artifact/diff paths, the output contract, and (round 2+) review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md. It contains no executor summary or fix narrative. After the task completes, invoke copilot_native_evidence.py verify to create the evidence and raw-response artifacts. The verifier must observe one successful linked rubber-duck lifecycle and known, different host-reported model families.

Pass the evidence to both review_gate.py --native-evidence and save_trace.sh --backend copilot-native --native-evidence. A qualifying native positive may stop directly; no external finalizer is needed. A native negative continues with a fresh marker/challenge/subagent next round. Every verdict-bearing native call—including a hard-mode rebuttal ruling—gets one unique <run_id, round, purpose> artifact set and exactly one challenge. Missing, same/unknown-family, malformed, stale, or mismatched evidence is never a verdict. If native complementary dispatch is unavailable, fall back only to a positively available opposite-family backend: Anthropic/Google executor → Codex; OpenAI executor → manual with a reported non-OpenAI model. Otherwise emit REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE. Full protocol: shared-references/reviewer-routing.md.

If REVIEWER_BACKEND = copilot: Require --executor-model: if not provided → emit REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE. Determine executor family from --executor-model (see reviewer-routing.md). Router picks opposite-family profile:

• executor_family=openai → profile="aris-reviewer-claude" (anthropic)
• executor_family=anthropic → profile="aris-reviewer-openai" (openai)
• executor_family=google → profile="aris-reviewer-openai" (openai, default cross)
• executor_family=unknown → REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE (fail closed). Verify the profile file exists at .github/agents/<profile>.agent.md. If missing → REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE. Read its model: field into REVIEWER_MODEL, derive reviewer_family from that model string, and verify it differs from executor_family. Pass the same value through subprocess --model; never trust a caller-supplied family label or profile-only pinning under an Auto session. Identity assurance: --executor-model is caller-declared routing input, not runtime attestation. Record executor_model_source: caller-declared, the derived family_relation, and independence_verified: unverified. A pair of different model strings must never be promoted to independently verified. Capability gate: copilot --help must advertise --model, --effort, and --allow-tool; otherwise emit REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE. Use the copilot --agent subprocess (documented Copilot CLI form) with the selected profile, --model "$REVIEWER_MODEL", --effort xhigh, and --allow-tool=read for each review call. Multi-round: each round is a fresh copilot --agent call with the same profile; reviewer memory is carried via review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md artifact. If copilot CLI is unavailable → REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE for that drive round; do not silently substitute another transport. A later positive Copilot verdict still requires the separately documented Codex/manual finalizer. See shared-references/reviewer-routing.md for the full copilot contract.

If REVIEWER_BACKEND = codex: Use mcp__codex__codex for new review threads. Use mcp__codex__codex-reply for follow-up rounds (reuse threadId).

If REVIEWER_BACKEND = manual: Use mcp__manual_review__review for new review threads with: prompt: [exact same prompt that would go to Codex] config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh", "executor_model": "", "require_reviewer_model": true} Save the returned threadId. Use mcp__manual_review__review_reply for follow-up rounds with: threadId: [saved manual-review threadId] prompt: [follow-up prompt] config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh", "executor_model": "", "require_reviewer_model": true} A verdict-bearing manual response MUST begin with Reviewer-Model: <exact-model-id>. Derive reviewer_family from that model identity. Missing, unknown, or same-family identity cannot acquit; for a mandatory escalation, emit REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE rather than guessing.

Prompt fidelity: the manual review task must be exactly the same text that Codex would receive; the transport may add only the required Reviewer-Model: response-format instruction. Review tracing applies to every backend. Native traces are populated from the revalidated host-event artifact rather than caller model declarations.

State Persistence (Compact Recovery)

Long-running loops may hit the context window limit, triggering automatic compaction. To survive this, persist state to review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json after each round:

{
  "run_id": "run_20260713_a1b2c3d4",
  "round": 2,
  "threadId": null,
  "reviewer_profile": "rubber-duck",
  "reviewer_backend": "copilot-native",
  "executor_model": "claude-sonnet-4.6",
  "executor_model_source": "host-session-event",
  "executor_family": "anthropic",
  "requested_reviewer_model": null,
  "reported_reviewer_model": "gpt-5.5",
  "reviewer_model_source": "host-session-event",
  "reviewer_family": "openai",
  "family_relation": "different",
  "identity_assurance": "host_event_verified",
  "independence_verified": true,
  "native_evidence_id": "cne_0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef",
  "native_evidence_path": "review-stage/COPILOT_NATIVE_run_20260713_a1b2c3d4_ROUND_2_REVIEW.evidence.json",
  "requires_external_acquittal": false,
  "status": "in_progress",
  "difficulty": "medium",
  "last_score": 5.0,
  "last_verdict": "not ready",
  "pending_experiments": ["screen_name_1"],
  "timestamp": "2026-03-13T21:00:00"
}

• run_id — Globally unique per invocation. Generated on fresh start as run_<YYYYMMDD>_<8-char-hex> (e.g., run_20260713_a1b2c3d4). Preserved across round writes. On resume, read from state file unchanged. This binds all round state, reviewer-memory appends, and acquittal receipts to one run so a stale completed state from a previous invocation cannot leak into the current run's acquittal check.

When REVIEWER_BACKEND = copilot-native, save the evidence ID/path and the host-event executor/reviewer models, derived families, and sources. Each round is a fresh rubber-duck subagent and therefore gets a fresh evidence artifact; there is no persistent child handle. When REVIEWER_BACKEND = compatibility copilot, retain reviewer_profile, requested model, caller-declared executor model, independence_verified: "unverified", and the external-finalizer obligation. For codex save its MCP threadId; for manual save threadId and the reported reviewer identity. On resume, use reviewer_backend to select the continuation mechanism and preserve requires_external_acquittal.

Write this file at the end of every Phase E (after documenting the round). Overwrite each time — only the latest round's state matters. The run_id field MUST persist unchanged across overwrites within the same run.

On completion (positive assessment or max rounds), set "status": "completed" so future invocations don't accidentally resume a finished loop.

Append-Only External-Finalizer Receipt

Whenever a Copilot path hands the verdict to an external backend—after a positive compatibility-drive review or after a pre-verdict native dispatch failure—maintain an append-only finalizer log at review-stage/ACQUITTAL_LOG.jsonl. Each line records the Codex/manual reviewer that completed that run. A successful native rubber-duck round never needs or writes this receipt; its evidence sidecar is the acceptance record. The historical filename is retained for compatibility:

{"run_id":"run_20260713_a1b2c3d4","round":3,"backend":"codex","effort":"xhigh","verdict":"ready","score":7.5,"executor_model":"claude-sonnet-4-5","executor_model_source":"caller-declared","executor_family":"anthropic","reviewer_model":"gpt-6-astra","reviewer_model_source":"requested","reviewer_family":"openai","family_relation":"different","identity_assurance":"caller_declared","independence_verified":"unverified","trace_id":"auto-review-loop/2026-07-13_run03","timestamp":"2026-07-13T14:22:00Z"}

Rules (non-negotiable):

Rule	Detail
Append-only	Never delete, never truncate, never overwrite lines. Only >>.
Who writes	Only a codex or manual round at xhigh effort when round_requires_external_acquittal was true. A Copilot review/dispatch never writes a finalizer line itself.
When to write	At the end of Phase E, after the policy-approved finalizer returns score >= 6 AND verdict ∈ {"ready", "almost"}. A normal default-Codex run does not need this sidecar.
run_id binding	Every line carries the current run_id and round so the Copilot → finalizer transition is auditable.
Trace linkage	trace_id MUST reference the real trace artifact in .aris/traces/; source and family fields in the receipt must exactly match that trace.
Identity honesty	Re-derive family_relation from the model strings, but preserve their sources. With the current caller-declared executor identity, write identity_assurance: "caller_declared" and independence_verified: "unverified"; never promote different strings to independent attestation.
No overwrite	REVIEW_STATE.json is overwritten each round (only latest state). ACQUITTAL_LOG.jsonl is NEVER overwritten — it is the permanent, cumulative record.

Why this exists: REVIEW_STATE.json is overwritten each round. The log preserves evidence that a compatibility drive verdict or failed native attempt did not terminate by itself. A successful copilot-native verdict instead uses its host-event evidence sidecar.

Output Protocols

Follow these shared protocols for all output files:

• Output Versioning Protocol — write timestamped file first, then copy to fixed name
• Output Manifest Protocol — log every output to MANIFEST.md
• Output Language Protocol — respect the project's language setting

Workflow

Initialization

1. Check for review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json (fall back to ./REVIEW_STATE.json if not found — legacy path):
   • If neither path exists: fresh start (normal case, identical to behavior before this feature existed)
     • Generate run_id: run_<YYYYMMDD>_<8-char-hex> (e.g., run_20260713_a1b2c3d4). Use date +%Y%m%d and 8 random hex characters. This run_id persists across all round writes and binds acquittal receipts to this invocation.
   • If it exists AND status is "completed": fresh start (previous loop finished normally — but its ACQUITTAL_LOG.jsonl entries are retained as an audit trail with their own run_id, and are NOT valid for the current run's stop gate)
     • Generate a new run_id for this invocation.
   • If it exists AND status is "in_progress" AND timestamp is older than 24 hours: fresh start (stale state from a killed/abandoned run — delete the file and start over)
     • Generate a new run_id for this invocation.
   • If it exists AND status is "in_progress" AND timestamp is within 24 hours: resume
     • Read the state file to recover run_id, round, threadId (or evidence/profile fields for Copilot backends), reviewer_backend, last_score, pending_experiments
     • Legacy backward compat: if reviewer_backend is absent from the state file, default to codex (pre-copilot-era states did not record this field). If requires_external_acquittal is absent, default it to false; a legacy default-Codex run must not inherit the stricter Copilot-finalizer state. If run_id is absent from the state file (pre-run_id era), generate a new run_id and log: "No run_id in legacy state file; assigned run_<...> for this resume."
     • Read review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md to restore full context of prior rounds (fall back to ./AUTO_REVIEW.md)
     • If pending_experiments is non-empty, check if they have completed (e.g., check screen sessions)

Loop (repeat up to MAX_ROUNDS)

Step -1 — Resolve the automatic backend and prepare one native challenge:

• If REVIEWER_BACKEND is auto, resolve the native helper and run one root marker call followed by one root challenge call. Use binding <run_id>_r<round>_review_<8-random-hex> and output review-stage/COPILOT_NATIVE_<run_id>_ROUND_<round>_REVIEW.challenge.json. A bound challenge sets REVIEWER_BACKEND to copilot-native and NATIVE_CHALLENGE to that path. Exit 3/unbound sets REVIEWER_BACKEND to codex. Any other failure follows the fail-closed capability rules.
• If REVIEWER_BACKEND is already copilot-native (a later round or a resumed run), create one fresh marker/challenge pair with the same run-scoped naming pattern and set NATIVE_CHALLENGE. An unbound or invalid challenge cannot be treated as a verdict or silently relabeled.
• Explicit external or compatibility backends do nothing in this step.

The challenge created here is the challenge consumed by Phase A. Do not run another marker/challenge for the same review. Run-scoped filenames are append-only audit identities; never pass --replace to reuse evidence from an older invocation.

Step 0 — Snapshot current-round state: After Step -1 resolves auto, set round_backend = <current REVIEWER_BACKEND> and round_requires_external_acquittal = <current requires_external_acquittal, default false>. These variables label the backend and obligation that actually governed the CURRENT round. If compatibility-drive escalation occurs later in Phase B.5.1 (copilot → codex/manual), the snapshots retain their pre-escalation values while the forward-looking state is updated for the NEXT round. A native dispatch failure is different because no review occurred: replace both snapshots with the external fallback values before that reviewer call, as specified in Phase A. A successful native call never sets the finalizer obligation. Phase E uses only the resulting snapshots when documenting or writing a finalizer receipt.

Phase A: Review

Route by REVIEWER_BACKEND and REVIEWER_DIFFICULTY.

If REVIEWER_BACKEND = copilot-native, execute one fresh native cycle:

1. Use NATIVE_CHALLENGE prepared by Step -1. It must be the run-scoped ..._ROUND_<round>_REVIEW.challenge.json artifact created in this round. Do not issue a second marker/challenge here.
2. Read the returned nonce. Call the host Task tool with agent_type: rubber-duck, a fresh name, and a prompt whose first line is exactly ARIS_REVIEW_NONCE=<nonce>. Supply paths to claims, methods/code, raw results, diff/current inputs, and reviewer memory—not an executor summary. Require exactly one Score: X/10 and Verdict: ready | almost | not ready plus ranked weaknesses/minimum fixes/memory update. Do not pass a model override: Copilot's complementary strategy selects it.
3. After Task completes, run python3 "<resolved-helper>" verify --challenge "$NATIVE_CHALLENGE" --output "review-stage/COPILOT_NATIVE_<run_id>_ROUND_<round>_REVIEW.evidence.json" --response-output "review-stage/COPILOT_NATIVE_<run_id>_ROUND_<round>_REVIEW.response.md" in a new root Bash call. Use only the extracted response artifact for Phase B.
4. Exit 10 (same/unknown family), incomplete lifecycle, invalid response, or unavailable complementary model is not a review. Apply the opposite-family fallback table in reviewer-routing.md; if none is positively available, emit REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE. Never emulate rubber-duck using a slash prompt, copilot --agent rubber-duck, or generic subagent. Trace a pre-evidence dispatch failure as --backend copilot-native --status error without evidence, then trace the actual fallback separately; this error trace has no authority at the stop gate. Before fallback, run copilot_native_evidence.py validate-challenge --challenge "$NATIVE_CHALLENGE" and take EXECUTOR_MODEL only from that output. Then:
   • Anthropic/Google executor + usable Codex → set both REVIEWER_BACKEND and round_backend to codex before the external call.
   • OpenAI executor + manual reviewer reporting a known non-OpenAI model → set both values to manual before the external call.
   • Set round_requires_external_acquittal=true for either fallback, clear NATIVE_EVIDENCE, and pass the validated executor model plus the fallback's resolved reviewer model to review_gate.py. This deliberately uses the stricter external-finalizer branch, which re-derives and enforces different families. If the external call does not return a usable review, emit REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE.

If REVIEWER_BACKEND = copilot, enforce opposite-family routing from the declared executor identity FIRST:

• Require --executor-model <model> parameter. If missing → REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE. Stop.
• Derive executor_family from executor_model:
  • Model names containing gpt, o1, o3, o4, chatgpt → openai
  • Model names containing claude, sonnet, opus, haiku → anthropic
  • Model names containing gemini → google
  • Anything else → unknown
• If executor_family is unknown → REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE (fail closed). Stop.
• Treat this as route selection, not attestation: persist executor_model_source: caller-declared; a derived family_relation: different remains independence_verified: unverified unless a future stable runtime signal independently proves the parent executor model.
• Router picks opposite-family profile:
  • openai → "aris-reviewer-claude" (anthropic, forced cross-family)
  • anthropic → "aris-reviewer-openai" (openai, forced cross-family)
  • google → "aris-reviewer-openai" (openai default)
• Verify the profile file exists at .github/agents/<profile>.agent.md. If missing → REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE. Stop.
• Read the profile's first frontmatter model: value, derive its family, and verify it is known and differs from executor_family. If not, fail closed.
• Verify copilot --help exposes --model, --effort, and --allow-tool. Older/unpinned CLIs are REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE.
• Adapt the Codex MCP calls below to use the copilot --agent subprocess (documented Copilot CLI form):
  • Replace mcp__codex__codex with copilot --agent "<profile>" --model "<parsed-model>" --effort xhigh --allow-tool=read --prompt "..."
  • Each round is a fresh copilot --agent call with the same profile + review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md artifact carrying round-to-round state.
  • The prompt text and Review Tracing are identical to the Codex path.

If REVIEWER_BACKEND ∈ {codex, manual}: use the backend-specific MCP call per the Reviewer Calling Convention above. The prompt text is the same regardless of backend.

Medium (default) — MCP Review

Send comprehensive context to the independent reviewer using the selected backend.

For codex backend:

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-6-astra
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    [Round N/MAX_ROUNDS of autonomous review loop]

    Review the work directly from its artifacts — executor notes are not
    evidence, so read the files yourself rather than trusting my framing:
    - Claims / paper draft: <path>
    - Methods / code under review: <path(s)>
    - Raw results (verbatim files, not a summary): <path(s)>
    - Changed since last round: <changed-file paths> — read the diff, not my description

    Please act as a senior ML reviewer (NeurIPS/ICML level). Start from the
    assumption that the work is broken somewhere — your job is to find where.
    Be adversarial. Trust nothing the author tells you — verify everything
    yourself.

    1. Score this work 1-10 for a top venue
    2. List remaining critical weaknesses (ranked by severity)
    3. For each weakness, specify the MINIMUM fix (experiment, analysis, or reframing)
    4. State clearly: is this READY for submission? Yes/No/Almost

    Be brutally honest. If, after genuinely trying to break it, the work holds
    up and is ready, say so clearly.

    === SCOPE LIMITS (these bound what you PROPOSE, never what you look for) ===
    Report anything that is actually wrong here — including a rare-looking case, if
    this repo actually produces it. Then keep the fix in scope:
    1. This is a RESEARCH-WORKFLOW tool, not a security paper. Verification is
       welcome; over-defense is not. Assume a cooperating operator on their own
       machine — a malicious local user is NOT in the threat model.
    2. Do NOT propose SHA / hash / content-fingerprint / digest-binding schemes.
       Reporting a real defect in hashing code that already exists is fine.
    3. NO speculative machinery: do not add feature flags, migration frameworks,
       compat layers, wrappers, pins, or similar mechanisms unless evidence shows
       a current repo defect they fix or an explicit existing invariant they must
       preserve. "Load-bearing", "compatibility", and "not scaffolding" are labels,
       not evidence. Point to the failing path/artifact or invariant, and check the
       proposal's factual premises, such as whether a named package version exists.
    4. NO corner-case obsession: exotic encodings, symlink races, RTL text and
       millisecond races are out of scope unless you can show the case arises here.
    5. Where a rubric or checklist is genuinely needed, do not over-mechanize
       judgement. A clear sentence a human reads beats a scored table nobody
       maintains.
    Exception: code that runs remote commands, starts a network service, or installs
    an MCP server runs on the user's machine with their credentials — trust-boundary
    findings there are in scope and the default is strict.
    Say plainly when something is correct. Do not manufacture findings.

For manual backend: use mcp__manual_review__review with the prompt text above and config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh", "executor_model": "<actual executor model>", "require_reviewer_model": true}. Save the returned threadId.

If this is round 2+, use mcp__codex__codex-reply (codex) or mcp__manual_review__review_reply (manual) with the saved threadId.

Hard — MCP Review + Reviewer Memory

Same as medium, but prepend Reviewer Memory to the prompt. Use the selected backend.

For codex backend:

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-6-astra
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    [Round N/MAX_ROUNDS of autonomous review loop]

    ## Your Reviewer Memory (persistent across rounds)
    [Paste full contents of review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md here]

    IMPORTANT: You have memory from prior rounds. Check whether your
    previous suspicions were genuinely addressed or merely sidestepped.
    The author (the executor model) controls what context you see — be skeptical
    of convenient omissions.

    Review directly from the artifacts (paths below) — read the files yourself:
    - Claims / methods / code: <path(s)>
    - Raw results: <path(s)>
    - Changed since last round: <changed-file paths> (read the raw diff)

    Please act as a senior ML reviewer (NeurIPS/ICML level).
    1. Score this work 1-10 for a top venue
    2. List remaining critical weaknesses (ranked by severity)
    3. For each weakness, specify the MINIMUM fix
    4. State clearly: is this READY for submission? Yes/No/Almost
    5. **Memory update**: List any new suspicions, unresolved concerns,
       or patterns you want to track in future rounds.

    Be brutally honest. Actively look for things the author might be hiding.

    === SCOPE LIMITS (these bound what you PROPOSE, never what you look for) ===
    Report anything that is actually wrong here — including a rare-looking case, if
    this repo actually produces it. Then keep the fix in scope:
    1. This is a RESEARCH-WORKFLOW tool, not a security paper. Verification is
       welcome; over-defense is not. Assume a cooperating operator on their own
       machine — a malicious local user is NOT in the threat model.
    2. Do NOT propose SHA / hash / content-fingerprint / digest-binding schemes.
       Reporting a real defect in hashing code that already exists is fine.
    3. NO speculative machinery: do not add feature flags, migration frameworks,
       compat layers, wrappers, pins, or similar mechanisms unless evidence shows
       a current repo defect they fix or an explicit existing invariant they must
       preserve. "Load-bearing", "compatibility", and "not scaffolding" are labels,
       not evidence. Point to the failing path/artifact or invariant, and check the
       proposal's factual premises, such as whether a named package version exists.
    4. NO corner-case obsession: exotic encodings, symlink races, RTL text and
       millisecond races are out of scope unless you can show the case arises here.
    5. Where a rubric or checklist is genuinely needed, do not over-mechanize
       judgement. A clear sentence a human reads beats a scored table nobody
       maintains.
    Exception: code that runs remote commands, starts a network service, or installs
    an MCP server runs on the user's machine with their credentials — trust-boundary
    findings there are in scope and the default is strict.
    Say plainly when something is correct. Do not manufacture findings.

Nightmare — Codex Exec (GPT reads repo directly)

Do NOT use MCP. Instead, let GPT access the repo autonomously via codex exec:

codex exec "$(cat <<'PROMPT'
You are an adversarial senior ML reviewer (NeurIPS/ICML level).
This is Round N/MAX_ROUNDS of an autonomous review loop.

## Your Reviewer Memory (persistent across rounds)
[Paste full contents of review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md]

## Instructions
You have FULL READ ACCESS to this repository. The author (the executor model) does NOT
control what you see — explore freely. Your job is to find problems the
author might hide or downplay.

DO THE FOLLOWING:
1. Read the experiment code, results files (JSON/CSV), and logs YOURSELF
2. Verify that reported numbers match what's actually in the output files
3. Check if evaluation metrics are computed correctly (ground truth, not model output)
4. Look for cherry-picked results, missing ablations, or suspicious hyperparameter choices
5. Read NARRATIVE_REPORT.md or review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md for the author's claims — then verify each against code

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Score: X/10
- Verdict: ready / almost / not ready
- Verified claims: [which claims you independently confirmed]
- Unverified/false claims: [which claims don't match the code or results]
- Weaknesses (ranked): [with MINIMUM fix for each]
- Memory update: [new suspicions and patterns to track next round]

Be adversarial. Trust nothing the author tells you — verify everything yourself.

=== SCOPE LIMITS (these bound what you PROPOSE, never what you look for) ===
Report anything that is actually wrong here — including a rare-looking case, if
this repo actually produces it. Then keep the fix in scope:
1. This is a RESEARCH-WORKFLOW tool, not a security paper. Verification is
   welcome; over-defense is not. Assume a cooperating operator on their own
   machine — a malicious local user is NOT in the threat model.
2. Do NOT propose SHA / hash / content-fingerprint / digest-binding schemes.
   Reporting a real defect in hashing code that already exists is fine.
3. NO speculative machinery: do not add feature flags, migration frameworks,
   compat layers, wrappers, pins, or similar mechanisms unless evidence shows
   a current repo defect they fix or an explicit existing invariant they must
   preserve. "Load-bearing", "compatibility", and "not scaffolding" are labels,
   not evidence. Point to the failing path/artifact or invariant, and check the
   proposal's factual premises, such as whether a named package version exists.
4. NO corner-case obsession: exotic encodings, symlink races, RTL text and
   millisecond races are out of scope unless you can show the case arises here.
5. Where a rubric or checklist is genuinely needed, do not over-mechanize
   judgement. A clear sentence a human reads beats a scored table nobody
   maintains.
Exception: code that runs remote commands, starts a network service, or installs
an MCP server runs on the user's machine with their credentials — trust-boundary
findings there are in scope and the default is strict.
Say plainly when something is correct. Do not manufacture findings.
PROMPT
)" --skip-git-repo-check 2>&1

Key difference: In nightmare mode, GPT independently reads code, result files, and logs. Claude cannot filter or curate what GPT sees. This is the closest analog to a real hostile reviewer who reads your actual paper + supplementary materials.

Phase B: Parse Assessment

CRITICAL: Save the FULL raw response from the reviewer verbatim (store in a variable for Phase E). For copilot-native, this must be the response artifact extracted by the evidence helper, never text copied by the executor. Do NOT discard or summarize — the raw text is the primary record.

Then extract structured fields:

• Score (numeric 1-10)
• Verdict ("ready" / "almost" / "not ready")
• Action items (ranked list of fixes)

Phase B.5: Reviewer Memory Update

After parsing the assessment, append to the canonical memory artifact at review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md. Both Copilot backends depend on this file for round-to-round continuity (each native subagent or compatibility subprocess is fresh), so the update runs regardless of REVIEWER_DIFFICULTY. No project-root fallback is permitted; create review-stage/ before the first append:

# Reviewer Memory

## Round 1 — Score: X/10

### Raw Reviewer Response (verbatim)
[Paste the COMPLETE raw reviewer response here — never summarized or curated by the executor.]

### Memory Update
[Reviewer's own memory update section, if provided — verbatim.]
- **Suspicion**: [what the reviewer flagged]
- **Unresolved**: [concerns not yet addressed]
- **Patterns**: [recurring issues the reviewer noticed]

---

## Round 2 — Score: X/10

### Raw Reviewer Response (verbatim)
[Paste the COMPLETE raw reviewer response here.]

### Memory Update
- **Previous suspicions addressed?**: [yes/no for each, with reviewer's judgment]
- **New suspicions**: [...]
- **Unresolved**: [carried forward + new]

---

Rules:

• Append-only — never delete, never truncate. The file is a reviewer-owned audit trail. The executor must never summarize, curate, or edit prior rounds' content. Append the reviewer's full raw response for this round verbatim, then append a memory update section if the reviewer provided one.
• Each round's append must be the reviewer's own words — if the reviewer's response includes a "Memory update" section, copy it verbatim as a ## Round N — Memory Update subsection after the raw response.
• This file is passed back to the reviewer in the next round's Phase A — it is the reviewer's persistent memory.
• Record the file's SHA-256 hash before each reviewer call and pass it to save_trace.sh via --memory-hash. Hash the memory as supplied to the call (pre-call artifact), not the post-append version, so the trace proves which memory was in play for that invocation.
• If the score REGRESSES round-to-round, don't just write a new memory line: diff the two rounds' raw .response.md files in .aris/traces/ first and find the exact criterion that flipped (see shared-references/review-tracing.md § Debugging With Traces). The memory file is a summary; the trace is evidence.

Phase B.5.1: Stop-Evaluation Gate

STOP CONDITION — branch by round_backend (the backend that actually ran this round), never by the forward-looking REVIEWER_BACKEND. Use the executable transition table in review_gate.py; resolve it through the canonical helper chain in shared-references/integration-contract.md §2. Its JSON decision and next_backend fields are authoritative. If the helper cannot be resolved or executed, emit REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE; do not improvise a transition.

Invoke the gate once per completed round. Pass model strings only—the helper derives families internally and does not accept caller-supplied family labels. Backend availability must be positively established from the current host's tool configuration; both finalizers default to unavailable:

cd "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)" || exit 1
if [ -z "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f .aris/installed-skills.txt ]; then
    ARIS_REPO=$(awk -F'\t' '$1=="repo_root"{print $2; exit}' .aris/installed-skills.txt 2>/dev/null) || true
fi
if [ -z "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f "$HOME/.aris/repo" ]; then
    ARIS_REPO=$(cat "$HOME/.aris/repo" 2>/dev/null) || true
fi
REVIEW_GATE=".aris/tools/review_gate.py"
[ -f "$REVIEW_GATE" ] || REVIEW_GATE="tools/review_gate.py"
[ -f "$REVIEW_GATE" ] || { [ -n "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && REVIEW_GATE="$ARIS_REPO/tools/review_gate.py"; }
[ -f "$REVIEW_GATE" ] || REVIEW_GATE=""
[ -n "$REVIEW_GATE" ] || { echo "REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE: review_gate.py not resolved" >&2; exit 1; }

GATE_REVIEWER_MODEL="${REPORTED_REVIEWER_MODEL:-${REQUESTED_REVIEWER_MODEL:-${REVIEWER_MODEL:-}}}"
GATE_ARGS=(
  --round-backend "$round_backend"
  --score "$SCORE"
  --verdict "$VERDICT"
  --executor-model "${EXECUTOR_MODEL:-}"
  --reviewer-model "$GATE_REVIEWER_MODEL"
)
if [[ "$round_backend" == "copilot-native" ]]; then
  [[ -n "${NATIVE_EVIDENCE:-}" ]] || {
    echo "REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE: native round has no evidence artifact" >&2
    exit 1
  }
  GATE_ARGS+=(--native-evidence "$NATIVE_EVIDENCE")
fi
if [[ "$round_requires_external_acquittal" == "true" ]]; then
  GATE_ARGS+=(--requires-external-acquittal)
fi
if [[ "${CODEX_AVAILABLE:-false}" == "true" ]]; then
  GATE_ARGS+=(--codex-available)
fi
if [[ "${MANUAL_AVAILABLE:-false}" == "true" ]]; then
  GATE_ARGS+=(--manual-available)
fi
if [[ "${MANUAL_IDENTITY_REPORTED:-false}" == "true" ]]; then
  GATE_ARGS+=(--manual-identity-reported)
fi
GATE_JSON=$(python3 "$REVIEW_GATE" "${GATE_ARGS[@]}") || {
  echo "REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE: review gate execution failed" >&2
  exit 1
}

Parse GATE_JSON as JSON; never infer a transition from the helper's prose reason. A review_unavailable decision is terminal. Copy next_backend and requires_external_acquittal into forward-looking state for escalate or continue; only stop enters the successful termination path.

• Default Codex compatibility (round_backend = codex, round_requires_external_acquittal = false): score >= 6 AND verdict ∈ {"ready", "almost"} stops exactly as it did before this Copilot integration. Executor identity is advisory trace metadata and may be absent; do not turn a valid default-Codex positive verdict into REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE. This path does not write an external-finalizer receipt.
• Existing Oracle/Agy routes: when explicitly selected outside a Copilot-finalizer state, their qualifying positive verdicts retain the same pre-Copilot stop behavior. They are not valid substitutes once requires_external_acquittal=true; that state permits only Codex/manual.
• Explicit manual backend: a positive verdict still requires the response's exact Reviewer-Model: header. Missing identity is REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE.
• Native Copilot round (round_backend = copilot-native): the evidence artifact is mandatory and revalidated by the gate. Its response-derived Score/Verdict must equal the CLI fields. A qualifying positive returns decision: stop with identity_assurance: host_event_verified; a negative returns continue on copilot-native. No external-finalizer state is set.
• Compatibility Copilot drive round (round_backend = copilot): this path never stops the loop. A negative verdict continues on compatibility Copilot. A positive verdict returns decision: escalate, sets requires_external_acquittal: true, and chooses the next backend from the caller-declared executor family:
  • anthropic or google → Codex when available, otherwise manual;
  • openai → manual only (Codex would be same-family);
  • unknown or no policy-approved finalizer → REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE.
• External-finalizer round (round_requires_external_acquittal = true): Codex/manual may stop on a qualifying positive verdict only when the model strings derive to known, different families; manual also requires its reported model header. This is fail-closed route consistency, not independent executor attestation. Record identity_assurance: caller_declared and independence_verified: "unverified". A negative finalizer verdict continues on the same finalizer backend with the obligation still true.

On compatibility Copilot escalation, update the forward-looking reviewer_backend and requires_external_acquittal in REVIEW_STATE.json; keep round_backend and round_requires_external_acquittal unchanged for Phase E. Once a finalizer returns a qualifying positive verdict, set the forward flag to false and stop. ACQUITTAL_LOG.jsonl is an append-only audit receipt, never an input that lets a later compatibility Copilot verdict stop the loop. Native evidence is evaluated directly and never consults that log.

This evaluation runs AFTER Phase B.5 so the terminal-round memory is always appended to review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md before exit.

Phase B.6: Debate Protocol (hard + nightmare only)

Skip entirely if REVIEWER_DIFFICULTY = medium.

After parsing the review, the executor gets a chance to rebut:

Step 1 — Executor Rebuttal:

For each weakness the reviewer identified, the executor writes a structured response:

### Rebuttal to Weakness #1: [title]
- **Accept / Partially Accept / Reject**
- **Argument**: [why this criticism is invalid, already addressed, or based on a misunderstanding]
- **Evidence**: [point to specific code, results, or prior round fixes]

Rules for the executor's rebuttal:

• Must be honest — do NOT fabricate evidence or misrepresent results
• Can point out factual errors in the review (reviewer misread code, wrong metric, etc.)
• Can argue a weakness is out of scope or would require unreasonable effort
• Maximum 3 rebuttals per round (pick the most impactful to contest)

Step 2 — Reviewer Rules on Rebuttal:

Send the executor's rebuttal back to the reviewer for a ruling:

Hard mode — use the selected backend for the rebuttal step:

For copilot-native: run a fresh marker/challenge and invoke a fresh native rubber-duck Task. Give it paths to review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md, the raw review response, and review-stage/ROUND_${ROUND}_REBUTTAL.md; require it to verify the cited files itself and return its updated Score/Verdict. Verify this verdict-bearing ruling with distinct run-scoped ..._ROUND_<round>_REBUTTAL.challenge.json, .evidence.json, and .response.md artifacts. Use that evidence (not the pre-debate evidence) in the stop gate and trace.

For compatibility copilot: fresh copilot --agent subprocess with the same profile + review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md context:

# Store the generated rebuttal as data; never paste memory/rebuttal text into
# a heredoc body, because either may contain a line matching its delimiter.
MEMORY_FILE="review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md"
REBUTTAL_FILE="review-stage/ROUND_${ROUND}_REBUTTAL.md"
[[ -f "$MEMORY_FILE" && -f "$REBUTTAL_FILE" ]] || {
  echo "REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE: missing memory or rebuttal artifact" >&2
  exit 1
}
PROMPTFILE="$(mktemp)" || { echo "REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE: mktemp failed" >&2; exit 1; }
trap 'rm -f "$PROMPTFILE"' EXIT
{
cat <<'ARIS_REBUTTAL_HEADER'
[Rebuttal ruling — same reviewer]

## Your Memory From Previous Rounds
ARIS_REBUTTAL_HEADER
cat -- "$MEMORY_FILE"
cat <<'ARIS_REBUTTAL_MIDDLE'

The author rebuts your review:
ARIS_REBUTTAL_MIDDLE
cat -- "$REBUTTAL_FILE"
cat <<'ARIS_REBUTTAL_FOOTER'

For each rebuttal, rule:
- SUSTAINED (author's argument is valid, withdraw this weakness)
- OVERRULED (your original criticism stands, explain why)
- PARTIALLY SUSTAINED (revise the weakness to a narrower scope)

Then update your score if any weaknesses were withdrawn.
Include a Memory Update section at the end of your response.
ARIS_REBUTTAL_FOOTER
} > "$PROMPTFILE"
copilot --agent "$REVIEWER_PROFILE" --model "$REVIEWER_MODEL" \
  --effort xhigh --allow-tool=read --prompt "$(cat "$PROMPTFILE")"

For codex:

mcp__codex__codex-reply:
  threadId: [saved]
  # inherits the thread's model/effort — do not re-send
  prompt: |
    The author rebuts your review:

For manual: use mcp__manual_review__review_reply with the same threadId and prompt.

The prompt content:

    The author rebuts your review:

    [paste executor's rebuttal]

    For each rebuttal, rule:
    - SUSTAINED (author's argument is valid, withdraw this weakness)
    - OVERRULED (your original criticism stands, explain why)
    - PARTIALLY SUSTAINED (revise the weakness to a narrower scope)

    Then update your score if any weaknesses were withdrawn.

Nightmare mode (codex exec):

codex exec "$(cat <<'PROMPT'
You are the same adversarial reviewer. The author rebuts your review:

[paste executor's rebuttal]

VERIFY the author's evidence claims yourself — read the files they reference.
Do NOT take their word for it.

For each rebuttal, rule:
- SUSTAINED (verified and valid)
- OVERRULED (evidence doesn't check out or argument is weak)
- PARTIALLY SUSTAINED (partially valid, narrow the weakness)

Update your score. Update your memory.
PROMPT
)" --skip-git-repo-check 2>&1

Step 3 — Update score and action items based on the ruling:

• SUSTAINED weaknesses: remove from action items
• OVERRULED: keep as-is
• PARTIALLY SUSTAINED: revise scope

Append the full debate transcript to review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md under the round's entry.

Human Checkpoint (if enabled)

Skip this step entirely if HUMAN_CHECKPOINT = false.

When HUMAN_CHECKPOINT = true, present the review results and wait for user input:

📋 Round N/MAX_ROUNDS review complete.

Score: X/10 — [verdict]
Top weaknesses:
1. [weakness 1]
2. [weakness 2]
3. [weakness 3]

Suggested fixes:
1. [fix 1]
2. [fix 2]
3. [fix 3]

Options:
- Reply "go" or "continue" → implement all suggested fixes
- Reply with custom instructions → implement your modifications instead
- Reply "skip 2" → skip fix #2, implement the rest
- Reply "stop" → end the loop, document current state

Wait for the user's response. Parse their input:

• Approval ("go", "continue", "ok", "proceed"): proceed to Phase C with all suggested fixes
• Custom instructions (any other text): treat as additional/replacement guidance for Phase C. Merge with reviewer suggestions where appropriate
• Skip specific fixes ("skip 1,3"): remove those fixes from the action list
• Stop ("stop", "enough", "done"): terminate the loop, jump to Termination

Feishu Notification (if configured)

After parsing the score, check if ~/.claude/feishu.json exists and mode is not "off":

• Send a review_scored notification: "Round N: X/10 — [verdict]" with top 3 weaknesses
• If interactive mode and verdict is "almost": send as checkpoint, wait for user reply on whether to continue or stop
• If config absent or mode off: skip entirely (no-op)

Phase C: Implement Fixes (if not stopping)

For each action item (highest priority first):

1. Code changes: Write/modify experiment scripts, model code, analysis scripts
2. Run experiments: Deploy to GPU server via SSH + screen/tmux
3. Analysis: Run evaluation, collect results, update figures/tables
4. Documentation: Update project notes and review document

Prioritization rules:

• Skip fixes requiring excessive compute (flag for manual follow-up)
• Skip fixes requiring external data/models not available
• Prefer reframing/analysis over new experiments when both address the concern
• Always implement metric additions (cheap, high impact)

Phase D: Wait for Results

If experiments were launched:

• Monitor remote sessions for completion
• Collect results from output files and logs
• Training quality check — if W&B is configured, invoke /training-check to verify training was healthy (no NaN, no divergence, no plateau). If W&B not available, skip silently. Flag any quality issues in the next review round.

Phase E: Document Round

Append to review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md:

## Round N (timestamp)

### Assessment (Summary)
- Score: X/10
- Verdict: [ready/almost/not ready]
- Key criticisms: [bullet list]

### Reviewer Raw Response

<details>
<summary>Click to expand full reviewer response</summary>

[Paste the COMPLETE raw response from the reviewer here — verbatim, unedited.
This is the authoritative record. Do NOT truncate or paraphrase.]

</details>

### Debate Transcript (hard + nightmare only)

<details>
<summary>Click to expand debate</summary>

**Executor Rebuttal:**
[paste rebuttal]

**Reviewer Ruling:**
[paste ruling — SUSTAINED / OVERRULED / PARTIALLY SUSTAINED for each]

**Score adjustment**: X/10 → Y/10

</details>

### Actions Taken
- [what was implemented/changed]

### Results
- [experiment outcomes, if any]

### Status
- [continuing to round N+1 / stopping]
- Difficulty: [medium/hard/nightmare]

Write review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json with current run_id, round, threadId, score, verdict, reviewer_backend, requires_external_acquittal, and any pending experiments. The run_id field MUST persist unchanged from initialization; do NOT regenerate it per round.

Backend labeling for the state file: The reviewer_backend field in REVIEW_STATE.json controls the continuation mechanism for the NEXT round (used on resume), not the round just documented. During Phase E:

• Use round_backend (snapshotted at round start, step 0) to label the CURRENT round in AUTO_REVIEW.md documentation (e.g., "Reviewer backend: copilot-native").
• Use round_requires_external_acquittal to decide whether the CURRENT round was a Copilot-triggered finalizer. Write requires_external_acquittal in state as the forward-looking obligation for the NEXT round.
• Write reviewer_backend in REVIEW_STATE.json to the value that should control the NEXT round — this is either (a) unchanged from the current round's backend if no escalation occurred, or (b) the escalation backend set during Phase B.5.1. Never substitute round_backend for this forward-looking field.
• When no escalation happened, round_backend == reviewer_backend (trivially safe).
• For a native round, persist native_evidence_id, native_evidence_path, both host-event model IDs/sources, family_relation: different, and identity_assurance: host_event_verified. Never copy these fields from prose.

If round_backend ∈ {codex, manual} AND round_requires_external_acquittal = true AND score >= 6 AND verdict ∈ {"ready", "almost"}: append one external-finalizer line to review-stage/ACQUITTAL_LOG.jsonl:

{"run_id":"<current-run_id>","round":<N>,"backend":"<codex|manual>","effort":"xhigh","verdict":"<ready|almost>","score":<score>,"executor_model":"<from-trace>","executor_model_source":"caller-declared","executor_family":"<derived-from-executor_model>","reviewer_model":"<from-trace-or-manual-Reviewer-Model>","reviewer_model_source":"<requested|backend-reported>","reviewer_family":"<derived-from-reviewer_model>","family_relation":"different","identity_assurance":"caller_declared","independence_verified":"unverified","trace_id":"<skill>/<YYYY-MM-DD>_run<NN>","timestamp":"<ISO8601>"}

Use >> (append), never >. Re-derive both families from model strings and reject unknown/same-family pairs, but copy the model-source and assurance fields without upgrading them. The trace_id MUST be the actual trace directory path relative to .aris/traces/ (e.g., auto-review-loop/2026-07-13_run01), matching the RUN_ID format from save_trace.sh: <YYYY-MM-DD>_run<NN> with the skill-name subdirectory prefix. Do NOT fabricate a synthetic trace_... identifier.

Append to findings.md (when COMPACT = true): one-line entry per key finding this round:

- [Round N] [positive/negative/unexpected]: [one-sentence finding] (metric: X.XX → Y.YY)

Increment round counter → back to Phase A.

Termination

When loop ends (positive assessment or max rounds):

1. Update review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json with "status": "completed"
2. Write final summary to review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md
3. Update project notes with conclusions
4. Write method/pipeline description to review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md under a ## Method Description section — a concise 1-2 paragraph description of the final method, its architecture, and data flow. This serves as input for /paper-illustration in Workflow 3 (so it can generate architecture diagrams automatically).
5. Generate claims from results — invoke /result-to-claim to convert experiment results from review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md into structured paper claims. Output: CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md. This bridges Workflow 2 → Workflow 3 so /paper-plan can directly use validated claims instead of extracting them from scratch. If /result-to-claim is not installed, skip this step (no CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md is produced; /paper-plan extracts claims from the narrative as before) — but NEVER fabricate the file or its verdict. If it ran but its output starts with verdict: REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE, keep that file AS-IS (do not overwrite or paraphrase it) and record in AUTO_REVIEW.md that claims are UNADJUDICATED — downstream paper stages must not treat them as validated.
6. If stopped at max rounds without positive assessment:
   • List remaining blockers
   • Estimate effort needed for each
   • Suggest whether to continue manually or pivot
7. Feishu notification (if configured): Send pipeline_done with final score progression table
8. Render HTML view (if RENDER_HTML = true, default): invoke /render-html on the cumulative review log:

   /render-html "review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md" --no-review --state review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json
   

   Pass --state explicitly (the helper does not auto-discover the sidecar). Drop the --state flag if REVIEW_STATE.json doesn't exist. HTML lands at review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.html with embedded source SHA256. Non-blocking: if /render-html fails, log the error and continue — the HTML is a convenience, not a termination prerequisite. Skip if RENDER_HTML = false.

Key Rules

• Large file handling: If the Write tool fails due to file size, immediately retry using Bash (cat << 'EOF' > file) to write in chunks. Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.

• ALWAYS use config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"} for maximum reasoning depth

• Native Copilot is an evidence-gated acceptance backend. It never pins a reviewer model: Copilot selects the complementary rubber-duck model, and the helper verifies the actual cross-family pair from host events. A native positive needs no external finalizer.

• Explicit compatibility Copilot remains drive-only. Its copilot --agent calls pin profile model/xhigh/read-only access and require a traced Codex/manual finalizer; caller-declared identity remains unverified.

• Save threadId (codex/manual), fresh evidence path/ID (copilot-native), or reviewer_profile (compatibility copilot); use the appropriate continuation mechanism

• Anti-hallucination citations: When adding references during fixes, NEVER fabricate BibTeX. Use the same DBLP → CrossRef → [VERIFY] chain as /paper-write: (1) curl -s "https://dblp.org/search/publ/api?q=TITLE&format=json" → get key → curl -s "https://dblp.org/rec/{key}.bib", (2) if not found, curl -sLH "Accept: application/x-bibtex" "https://doi.org/{doi}", (3) if both fail, mark with % [VERIFY]. Do NOT generate BibTeX from memory.

• Be honest — include negative results and failed experiments

• Do NOT hide weaknesses to game a positive score

• Implement fixes BEFORE re-reviewing (don't just promise to fix)

• Exhaust before surrendering — before marking any reviewer concern as "cannot address": (1) try at least 2 different solution paths, (2) for experiment issues, adjust hyperparameters or try an alternative baseline, (3) for theory issues, provide a weaker version of the result or an alternative argument, (4) only then concede narrowly and bound the damage. Never give up on the first attempt.

• If an experiment takes > 30 minutes, launch it and continue with other fixes while waiting

• Document EVERYTHING — the review log should be self-contained

• Update project notes after each round, not just at the end

Prompt Template for Round 2+

Use the selected backend. For copilot-native: fresh marker/challenge/rubber-duck/evidence cycle with a new run-scoped REVIEW artifact set, with paths to review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md and current inputs. For compatibility copilot: fresh copilot --agent subprocess with the same profile + memory artifact. For codex: mcp__codex__codex-reply with the saved threadId. For manual: mcp__manual_review__review_reply with the saved threadId.

Before invoking the Copilot subprocess, use the Write tool (not Bash, echo, a heredoc, or generated shell assignments) to overwrite review-stage/CURRENT_REVIEW_INPUTS.md. Put the exact changed paths, diff artifact/range, and result paths under static labels in that file. Repository paths are untrusted data: never splice any byte from this artifact into shell source. The fixed filename below is the only value the shell template needs.

[For copilot:]

# ARIS_ROUND2_COPILOT_BEGIN
# Dynamic values were written with the Write tool; shell only reads them as data.
MEMORY_FILE="review-stage/REVIEWER_MEMORY.md"
ROUND_INPUT_FILE="review-stage/CURRENT_REVIEW_INPUTS.md"
[[ -f "$MEMORY_FILE" && -f "$ROUND_INPUT_FILE" ]] || {
  echo "REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE: missing reviewer memory or round inputs" >&2
  exit 1
}
PROMPTFILE="$(mktemp)" || { echo "REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE: mktemp failed" >&2; exit 1; }
trap 'rm -f "$PROMPTFILE"' EXIT
{
cat <<'ARIS_ROUND_HEADER'
[Round N update]

## Your Memory From Previous Rounds
ARIS_ROUND_HEADER
cat -- "$MEMORY_FILE"
cat <<'ARIS_ROUND_STATE'

Since your last review these files changed — read them yourself; do not
take my word for what changed or whether it worked:
ARIS_ROUND_STATE
cat -- "$ROUND_INPUT_FILE"
cat <<'ARIS_ROUND_INSTRUCTIONS'

Please re-score and re-assess. Are the remaining concerns addressed?
Same format: Score, Verdict, Remaining Weaknesses, Minimum Fixes.

=== SCOPE LIMITS (these bound what you PROPOSE, never what you look for) ===
Report anything that is actually wrong here — including a rare-looking case, if
this repo actually produces it. Then keep the fix in scope:
1. This is a RESEARCH-WORKFLOW tool, not a security paper. Verification is
   welcome; over-defense is not. Assume a cooperating operator on their own
   machine — a malicious local user is NOT in the threat model.
2. Do NOT propose SHA / hash / content-fingerprint / digest-binding schemes.
   Reporting a real defect in hashing code that already exists is fine.
3. NO speculative machinery: do not add feature flags, migration frameworks,
   compat layers, wrappers, pins, or similar mechanisms unless evidence shows
   a current repo defect they fix or an explicit existing invariant they must
   preserve. "Load-bearing", "compatibility", and "not scaffolding" are labels,
   not evidence. Point to the failing path/artifact or invariant, and check the
   proposal's factual premises, such as whether a named package version exists.
4. NO corner-case obsession: exotic encodings, symlink races, RTL text and
   millisecond races are out of scope unless you can show the case arises here.
5. Where a rubric or checklist is genuinely needed, do not over-mechanize
   judgement. A clear sentence a human reads beats a scored table nobody
   maintains.
Exception: code that runs remote commands, starts a network service, or installs
an MCP server runs on the user's machine with their credentials — trust-boundary
findings there are in scope and the default is strict.
Say plainly when something is correct. Do not manufacture findings.

At the end of your review, include a Memory Update section — this will
be passed back to you next round.
ARIS_ROUND_INSTRUCTIONS
} > "$PROMPTFILE"
copilot --agent "$REVIEWER_PROFILE" --model "$REVIEWER_MODEL" \
  --effort xhigh --allow-tool=read --prompt "$(cat "$PROMPTFILE")"
# ARIS_ROUND2_COPILOT_END

[For codex:] mcp__codex__codex-reply:
  threadId: [saved from round 1]
  # inherits the thread's model/effort — do not re-send
  prompt: |
    [Round N update]

    Since your last review these files changed — read them yourself; do not
    take my word for what changed or whether it worked:
    - Changed files: <paths>
    - Raw diff: <path, or the `git diff` range>
    - Updated raw results: <result-file paths> (verbatim files, not a pasted table)

    Please re-score and re-assess. Are the remaining concerns addressed?
    Same format: Score, Verdict, Remaining Weaknesses, Minimum Fixes.

    === SCOPE LIMITS (these bound what you PROPOSE, never what you look for) ===
    Report anything that is actually wrong here — including a rare-looking case, if
    this repo actually produces it. Then keep the fix in scope:
    1. This is a RESEARCH-WORKFLOW tool, not a security paper. Verification is
       welcome; over-defense is not. Assume a cooperating operator on their own
       machine — a malicious local user is NOT in the threat model.
    2. Do NOT propose SHA / hash / content-fingerprint / digest-binding schemes.
       Reporting a real defect in hashing code that already exists is fine.
    3. NO speculative machinery: do not add feature flags, migration frameworks,
       compat layers, wrappers, pins, or similar mechanisms unless evidence shows
       a current repo defect they fix or an explicit existing invariant they must
       preserve. "Load-bearing", "compatibility", and "not scaffolding" are labels,
       not evidence. Point to the failing path/artifact or invariant, and check the
       proposal's factual premises, such as whether a named package version exists.
    4. NO corner-case obsession: exotic encodings, symlink races, RTL text and
       millisecond races are out of scope unless you can show the case arises here.
    5. Where a rubric or checklist is genuinely needed, do not over-mechanize
       judgement. A clear sentence a human reads beats a scored table nobody
       maintains.
    Exception: code that runs remote commands, starts a network service, or installs
    an MCP server runs on the user's machine with their credentials — trust-boundary
    findings there are in scope and the default is strict.
    Say plainly when something is correct. Do not manufacture findings.

Review Tracing

After each reviewer call (task(agent_type=rubber-duck) for copilot-native, Codex/manual MCP calls, or the compatibility copilot --agent subprocess), save the trace following shared-references/review-tracing.md (Policy C — forensic; never silently skip). Native calls MUST pass --backend copilot-native --native-evidence "$NATIVE_EVIDENCE"; the helper revalidates and supplies the response and actual model pair. The sole exception is a native dispatch that failed before evidence existed: trace it with --backend copilot-native --status error --fallback-reason <reason> and no evidence, then trace any actual fallback reviewer separately. Use save_trace.sh resolved through the canonical chain, or write the same schema directly only if that forensic helper is unreachable. Respect --- trace: (default full).

Stop-Gate State-Transition Tests

The canonical transition table is tools/review_gate.py in the ARIS repository (resolved at runtime as review_gate.py through the helper chain) and is covered by tests/test_review_gate.py. The required cases are:

1. Default Codex positive → stop even when executor model identity is absent (backward compatibility).
2. High score + not ready → continue.
3. Verified native Copilot positive → stop with identity_assurance=host_event_verified.
4. Native negative → continue on copilot-native; missing/invalid/mismatched evidence → REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE.
5. Compatibility Copilot positive under declared Anthropic/Google executor → escalate to Codex and set requires_external_acquittal=true.
6. Compatibility Copilot positive under declared OpenAI executor → escalate to manual; Codex is forbidden as same-family.
7. Compatibility Copilot negative → continue on compatibility Copilot.
8. Unknown executor family, unavailable finalizer, same-family finalizer, or manual finalizer without Reviewer-Model: → REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE.
9. Positive finalizer with known, different declared families → stop, while identity assurance remains caller_declared / unverified.

ACQUITTAL_LOG.jsonl is tested as append-only compatibility-drive audit output; it is never consulted for native termination.