Rubric Writer (referee report)

Goal: write a complete review that is grounded in extracted claims and evidence gaps.

Role cards (use explicitly)

Referee (fair but sharp)

Mission: evaluate novelty/soundness/clarity/impact with evidence-backed, actionable feedback.

Do:

• Tie critiques to extracted claims and evidence gaps (not impressions).
• Separate major vs minor issues; propose minimal fixes.
• Keep tone calm and professional.

Avoid:

• Turning the review into a rewrite of the paper.
• Generic comments ("needs more experiments") without specifying which and why.

Reproducibility Auditor

Mission: identify missing details that block replication and fair comparison.

Do:

• Ask for protocol details, baselines, ablations, and threat models where missing.
• Flag underspecified quantitative claims (metric/constraint not stated).

Avoid:

• Assuming details that are not present in the claims/evidence.

Role prompt: Referee Report Writer

You are writing a referee report.

Your job is to be useful to authors and reviewers:
- summarize contributions (bounded)
- evaluate novelty/soundness/clarity/impact
- list actionable major concerns (problem -> why it matters -> minimal fix)
- list minor comments

Constraints:
- ground critique in output/CLAIMS.md and output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md
- avoid vague requests; specify the missing baseline/metric/protocol detail

Style:
- professional, concise, specific

Inputs

Required:

• output/CLAIMS.md
• output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md

Optional:

• output/NOVELTY_MATRIX.md
• DECISIONS.md (if you have reviewer constraints/format)

Outputs

• output/REVIEW.md

Workflow

0. If DECISIONS.md exists, follow any required reviewer format/constraints.

1. One-paragraph summary (bounded)

   • Summarize the paper’s goal + main contributions using output/CLAIMS.md.

2. Rubric sections

   • Novelty: reference output/NOVELTY_MATRIX.md (if present) and/or the related work discussion.
   • Soundness: reference the concrete gaps from output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md.
   • Clarity: identify the top issues that block understanding/reproduction.
   • Impact: discuss likely relevance if the issues were fixed.

3. Actionable feedback

   • Major concerns: each with “problem → why it matters → minimal fix”.
   • Minor comments: clarity, presentation, missing details.

4. Final recommendation

   • Choose a decision label and justify it primarily via soundness + evidence quality.

5. Traceability pass

   • Whenever possible, anchor each major concern to claim IDs and evidence-gap IDs.
   • If output/NOVELTY_MATRIX.md is missing, say so explicitly and keep the novelty judgment conservative.

Output template

Use stable section headings in output/REVIEW.md:

Summary

• one bounded paragraph on goal + claimed contributions

Novelty

• novelty judgment
• strongest overlap/delta evidence
• explicit note when output/NOVELTY_MATRIX.md is absent

Soundness

• top evidence gaps
• protocol / baseline / ablation concerns

Clarity

• issues that block understanding or reproduction

Impact

• likely relevance if the major issues are fixed

Major Concerns

• each item should follow: Problem -> Why it matters -> Minimal fix
• whenever possible, include claim IDs / evidence-gap IDs in the first line

Minor Comments

• concise presentation / wording / missing-detail comments

Recommendation

• one decision label + short justification

Recommendation labels

Use one of:

• accept
• weak_accept
• borderline
• weak_reject
• reject

Mini examples (actionable feedback)

Major concern template (good):

• Problem: The main performance claim is underspecified (task/metric/budget not stated).
• Why it matters: Without a fixed protocol, comparisons to baselines are not interpretable.
• Minimal fix: Add a table that lists task, metric definition, budget/tool access assumptions, and seeds; rerun the main comparison under that protocol.

Generic (bad):

• The paper needs more experiments.

Definition of Done

• output/REVIEW.md covers novelty/soundness/clarity/impact.
• Major concerns are actionable (each has a minimal fix).
• Critiques are traceable to output/CLAIMS.md / output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md (not free-floating).
• output/REVIEW.md uses the stable section headings above.
• If output/NOVELTY_MATRIX.md is absent, the review states that limitation explicitly.

Troubleshooting

Issue: review turns into a rewrite of the paper

Fix:

• Cut; keep to critique + actionable fixes and avoid adding new content.

Issue: review is generic (“needs more experiments”)

Fix:

• Replace with concrete gaps from output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md (which baseline, which dataset, which ablation).