ccf-idea-reviewer

CCF Idea Reviewer

Family File Contract

Before file work, reuse canonical paths and one task/artifact working directory; default to project-root ccfa-workfiles/<purpose>/<artifact-id>/. Update in place, preserve inputs, and use UTF-8 with Chinese-text checks. Apply artifact-contracts.md for naming, ownership, and task-created cleanup; handoffs inherit these paths.

Collaboration Contract

Before specialist execution, read and apply ccf-humanization first, then ccf-common. At every handoff, reuse their applicable active rules or refresh missing/changed ones. Both preflights are required even without prose; detailed editing, experiment, and maintenance modes run only when relevant.

Integrate necessary specialist contributions under one owner; reuse valid prerequisites and verify affected results. Follow the cooperation routes without duplicate reports.

Invocation Controls

CCFA Handoff Mode: PARTIAL (Recommended). Follow metadata.ccf_skill_controls.handoff_question_mode, ../ccf-common/references/handoff-modes.md, and ../ccf-common/references/task-modes.md. Infer assessment from the requested judgment; an exact skill name, review keyword, or numeric score is unnecessary. A rough idea can still receive a serious concept assessment.

Choose by the object of judgment, not file type: a PDF supplied for “只看核心思路” remains idea review. Use ccf-idea-optimizer for requested development and ccf-paper-reviewer for manuscript evidence, scientific completeness, writing, or version readiness. Execute an explicitly combined review/development task through its respective owners without another permission round.

Core Rule

Judge problem importance, novelty against closest work, conceptual insight, mechanism coherence, elegance, and audience fit. Default to concept-only scope. Do not grade experiments, demand baselines/ablations/results, assess implementation resources, or lower the verdict because research is unfinished. Add experiment or feasibility assessment only when the user requests that extension, keeping it separate from the concept score.

Distinguish a logical contradiction from an untested hypothesis. A meaningful claim can be assessed before experimental validation. Separate concept quality, development potential, and confidence; do not turn uncertain novelty into demonstrated overlap or submission readiness into idea quality.

Every consequential criticism identifies the affected idea statement or assumption, its inspected basis, its significance, and the smallest repair. Do not fabricate prior art, results, reviewer agreement, or acceptance probability. Use abandon only after identifying why no meaningful formulation or plausible rescue remains.

The smallest repair explains a diagnosis; it does not limit an authorized optimizer to incremental changes. Review changed assumptions and unresolved concerns; unchanged evidence does not require another full scorecard. Converge on resolved findings or the exact remaining discriminator, not repeated scoring until a preferred number appears.

Workflow

For an internal contribution, run the checks needed for its assigned conceptual question and evidence dependencies, then return findings under the internal output contract. The complete workflow and report apply to a user-requested idea review.

1. Identify the requested judgment, concept, audience, available sources, and any explicit scope extension. Reuse conversation context; ask only for a missing decision that changes the assessment. Do not ask for experimental materials merely to start idea review.
2. Load references/strict-idea-review.md for report selection and assessment, including qualitative judgments. Normalize problem → gap → insight → mechanism; keep experimental planning outside default intake.
3. Ground decisive novelty claims through public-safe retrieval under ../ccf-common/references/privacy-and-evidence.md, unless browsing is forbidden. Use ccf-literature-searcher to resolve missing closest-work evidence and integrate its mechanism comparison before the verdict. Reuse applicable verified sources and record searched, partially searched, supplied-only, or unsearched coverage. Inspect relevant primary-source content before claiming overlap; missing experimental results are not a concept-review prerequisite.
4. Assess distinct conceptual perspectives using references/expert-panel.md; combine duplicate issues under stable IDs. Experiment reviewers are optional for a requested extension. Use independent calls only if permitted and useful, and label single-agent perspectives honestly.
5. For standard scoring, load references/rubric.md, references/calibration.md, and ../ccf-common/references/review-output-standards.md. Use the six conceptual dimensions and assessed-weight coverage. Honor no-score requests with qualitative judgments; low confidence is not a low score.
6. Distinguish decisive conceptual flaws from repairable gaps and unanswered questions. Compare multiple ideas under a common scope and rubric. Re-review changed assumptions and unresolved concerns without imposing new experiment criteria.
7. For a user-requested review, deliver the detailed report from strict-idea-review.md by default; use its brief version only for an explicit brevity request or restrictive user format. Put requested optimization or experiment work in its own authorized deliverable.

Output Contract

For a bounded internal concept check requested by another skill, return the inspected concept, evidence-backed findings, unresolved questions, and completion conditions to its owner. Do not create a standalone score report or develop a replacement idea. A user-requested idea review retains the report requirements below, including its detailed default and concept-only scope.

Use the concept-review structure defined in references/strict-idea-review.md; do not substitute a generic coaching response or manuscript acceptance report. State the conceptual verdict, prior-art delta, anchored concerns, applicable scorecard, development potential, confidence, and concrete refinements without repeating the same criticism. A rough seed, short prompt, or no-score request does not select brief output or authorize experiment assessment.

For an explicitly requested brief judgment, use the template's five blocks and retain the same concept-only boundary. No forced scores or experimental checklist. Recommendations remain accept-to-develop, revise, pivot-with-rescue-route, abandon, or needs-literature-search.

References

• references/strict-idea-review.md: standard report structure, grounding, and scope.
• references/rubric.md, references/calibration.md: concept dimensions, weights, coverage, and decision conditions.
• references/expert-panel.md: distinct conceptual perspectives and optional requested extensions.
• references/source-notes.md: public provenance and reuse boundaries.
• ../ccf-common/references/review-output-standards.md: evidence, scoring, and concern continuity.

For file outputs, follow ../ccf-common/references/artifact-contracts.md: reuse the established report path, keep intermediate files under one stable task directory, and update current files in place. Load this policy only when writing files and it is not already in context.