academic-thesis-review

# Skill: Academic Thesis Review (Chinese Master's Thesis) ## Description Multi-round academic review of Chinese Master's theses (硕士学位论文). Uses a 3-round review strategy (macro → per-chapter → inter-chapter consistency). Acts as a strict professor reviewer, producing actionable revision comments in Chinese. Supports iterative version cycles. ## Trigger Phrases - "审阅论文" / "review thesis" - "论文评审" / "学术评审" - "帮我看看论文" / "论文有什么问题" - "再做一轮审阅" / "修改后再看看" ## Prerequisites - Thesis file in `.docx` format - Python available for text extraction (zipfile + xml.etree.ElementTree) - If `review_results.md` exists in the working directory, iterative mode is triggered automatically (see Phase 1 § Prior Review Detection) --- # Part I: Rules & Instructions ## Core Rules ### Execution Order ``` Round 1 ─┐ ┐ ├─ (parallel or sequential) ───├→ Round 3 → Consolidate → User revises Round 2 ─┘ ┘ ``` - **Round 1** and **Round 2** have **no hard dependency** on each other. The agent may run them in parallel or sequentially depending on its own capabilities and context constraints. - **Round 1:** reviews the full thesis text. Output: macro structure review + chapter dependency map. - **Round 2:** reviews chapters **sequentially in document order**. Each chapter review has access to the summary cards of all previously reviewed chapters. Output: per-chapter issues + per-chapter summary cards. - **Round 3** depends on **both** Round 1 and Round 2 completing. It reconciles their outputs, then reviews chapter pairs. Output: inter-chapter consistency issues + pair coverage log. - All 3 rounds review the **same original text** — the user revises only after all rounds complete. ### Default Thesis Assumption Standard master's thesis structure: abstract → introduction → literature/theory → methodology → analysis/results → conclusion → references → appendices. No restriction on research topic, industry, or case type. **Non-standard fallback:** If the thesis uses non-standard chapter names or merged chapters, map chapters by function: research problem → literature support → method design → results delivery → conclusion. ### Conflict Resolution (authoritative — all rounds defer to this) 1. **Evidence first, then severity.** If R2/R3 evidence overturns an R1 finding, the severity follows the new evidence — do not preserve R1's higher severity for a claim R2/R3 disproved. 2. If Round 2 and Round 3 disagree on the same finding, prefer the conclusion backed by **more direct full-text evidence**. 3. If multiple rounds independently confirm the same issue but at different severities, keep the **higher severity**. ### Verification Types All review checklists use these labels. Defined once here; referenced throughout. - **[D]** = directly verifiable from thesis text - **[S]** = suspicion only — flag for closer look, agent cannot confirm - **[M]** = requires manual verification outside thesis text (original Word file, source literature, or external facts) ### Severity Rubric - 🔴 **Immediate fix** — threatens credibility, conclusion validity, or defense safety (data contradictions, unanswered research questions, method-result mismatch, clear factual errors, substantive cross-chapter conflicts) - 🟡 **Strongly recommended** — weakens academic quality but not immediately fatal (underdeveloped argument, weak literature-method link, unstable terminology, loose structure) - 🟢 **Quality improvement** — wording, polish, or refinement that does not affect conclusions --- ## Phase 1: Text Extraction Extract plain text from `.docx` via Python: ```python import zipfile, xml.etree.ElementTree as ET docx_path = r'<PATH_TO_DOCX>' z = zipfile.ZipFile(docx_path) doc_xml = z.read('word/document.xml') tree = ET.fromstring(doc_xml) ns = {'w': 'http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main'} paragraphs = tree.findall('.//w:p', ns) full_text = [] for p in paragraphs: runs = p.findall('.//w:r/w:t', ns) line = ''.join(r.text for r in runs if r.text) if line.strip(): full_text.append(line) result = '\n'.join(full_text) ``` Output to `review_artifacts/thesis_full_text_<YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS>.txt`. Create directory if it does not exist. Note paragraph count and character count as baseline metrics. ### Preparation After extraction, prepare: - **Full text file** — for Round 1 - **Per-chapter split files** — for Round 2 - **Thesis summary block** — title + full Chinese abstract + full English abstract + table of contents (~500-1000 chars), used as context prefix in Rounds 2 and 3 ### Chapter Splitting Rules - Split by **top-level chapter headings** (e.g., `第1章`, `第一章`, `1 绪论`) - Sub-headings (level 2/3) belong to their parent chapter - **Long chapter**: read in subsection chunks during Round 2, but output one consolidated result and one summary card per top-level chapter - **Short chapter**: flag as structure weakness in Round 2; do not auto-merge unless user confirms - **Ambiguous boundaries**: ask user to confirm rather than guessing ### Prior Review Detection (Iterative Mode) After extraction, check whether `review_results.md` exists in the current working directory. **Not found → First-version mode:** - Version = 第1版 - No prior issues to load - Proceed normally **Found → Iterative mode:** 1. Parse the prior `review_results.md` to extract: - Prior version number → increment by 1 for the new review - All prior issues from "本版问题清单" with their severity, location, and description 2. Classify each prior issue by its "位置" field: - Issues with location "全局" → redistribute to relevant chapters in Round 2 - Issues with location "第X章" → **Round 2** (injected in Phase B when reviewing that chapter) - Issues with location "第X章→第Y章" → **Round 3** (injected when reviewing that pair) 3. Verification marking (applied in Phase B of Round 2 and in Round 3): - Issue is resolved → mark ✅已修改 - Issue is partially addressed → mark ⚠️部分修改, describe what remains - Issue is unchanged → mark ❌未修改 ### Iterative Mode: Issue Injection Strategy **Key Principle: Separation of Discovery and Verification** To prevent anchoring bias (agent treating prior issues as a checklist instead of performing independent review), the injection strategy is designed as follows: **Round 1: No injection** - Execute exactly as first-version mode (completely independent) - Do NOT inject any prior issues, including "全局" issues - Rationale: Issues found in Round 1 are typically also discoverable in Round 2/3; verifying global issues through specific chapters is more precise **Round 2: Two-phase per-chapter review** - **Phase A (Independent Discovery):** Review chapter with NO historical issues visible - **Phase B (Historical Verification):** Inject chapter-specific issues + relevant "全局" issues for verification - See §2.x for detailed Phase A/B execution rules **Round 3: Cross-chapter verification** - Inject cross-chapter historical issues (位置="第X章→第Y章") - Execute spot checks on chapters that declared "无新发现" in Phase A **Anti-Shortcut Rules:** - ✅ **DO:** Complete Phase A output before seeing any historical issues. Use dimension coverage checklist to confirm systematic review. - ❌ **DON'T:** Combine Phase A and Phase B. Skip the dimension coverage checklist. Claim "no new issues" without checklist evidence. ### Extraction Limitations - Figures/images lost — only captions and in-text references survive - Table structure flattened to rows of text - Formulas may be fragmented or missing - Cross-references (图X.X, 表X.X) survive as text but actual targets cannot be verified - Headers/footers and page numbers not extracted --- ## Phase 2: Three-Round Review ### Round 1: Macro Structure Review **Input:** Full thesis text. *(In iterative mode: NO prior issues injected — execute as first-version mode)* **Focus:** Bird's-eye structural and logical assessment. Do NOT give line-level edits. **Long-input fallback:** If the full thesis exceeds stable single-pass context, read in large sequential chunks with overlap, then do one pass over all Round 1 findings to ensure cross-chunk consistency before outputting the dependency map. #### 1.1 Reading Order 1. Title page & metadata 2. Table of contents 3. Chinese abstract + keywords 4. English abstract + keywords 5. All chapters — read sequentially for structural flow 6. References 7. Appendices #### 1.2 Review Checklist | Item | What to Check | Type | |------|--------------|------| | **Overall structure** | Chapter layout logical? Chapters proportional? | [D] | | **Research question → Conclusion chain** | All research questions answered in conclusion? Any silently dropped? | [D] | | **Logic flow** | Each chapter leads naturally to the next? Logical jumps or missing bridges? | [D] | | **Terminology consistency (global)** | Key terms used consistently throughout? | [D] | | **Theory utilization** | How many theories introduced vs. actually used? Flag bloat. | [D] | | **Completeness** | All promised analyses delivered? Limitations discussed? Future work? | [D] | | **Factual self-consistency** | Dates, statistics contradict each other *within* the thesis? | [D] | | **Factual accuracy (external)** | Do named facts match known reality? | [M] — flag suspicious values only | | **Section proportionality** | Chapters too short for their function, or too long and overloaded? | [D] | | **Innovation & contribution** | Are innovation points explicitly stated? Are they supported by the thesis body? **Calibration: master's theses (especially part-time/professional) are NOT expected to produce high-level innovation. Applying existing methods to a new context or combining known approaches in a novel way IS acceptable — the key requirement is that innovation points exist, are clearly articulated, and are not fabricated.** Flag missing or unsubstantiated claims, not low novelty. | [D] for whether stated; [S] for whether substantiated | | **Practice relevance** *(if practice-oriented)* | Is the research grounded in a real-world problem or case? Does the thesis produce actionable recommendations, not just theoretical conclusions? Does it demonstrate problem-solving ability? | [D] | | **Abstract consistency** | Chinese and English abstracts match each other and faithfully represent the thesis? | [D] | | **References (overview)** | Format consistency, recency, relevance | [D] | #### 1.3 Required Output: Chapter Dependency Map Output a chapter dependency map at the end of Round 1. This drives Round 3 pair selection. Format: ``` 章节逻辑依赖关系： - 🔴 第1章 → 第5章：[依赖关系说明] - 🔴 第3章 → 第4章：[依赖关系说明] - 🟡 第2章 → 第3章：[依赖关系说明] - ... ``` - `A → B` = A makes a promise / sets scope; B should deliver or remain consistent - 🔴 = must check in Round 3 · 🟡 = check if evidence supports it · 🟢 = advisory, low priority - Principle: **谁承诺，谁兑现，这两章就要配对。** See Appendix A for common patterns. --- ### Round 2: Per-Chapter Deep Review **Input per chapter:** Thesis summary block + current chapter full text + summary cards of all previously reviewed chapters. **Execution:** Sequential, in document order. *(In iterative mode: two-phase execution per chapter — see §2.x)* **Focus:** Detailed intra-chapter quality. Line-level issues are caught here. **First chapter note:** When reviewing the first chapter, no prior summary cards exist. Skip the "交付" field in that chapter's summary card. #### 2.1 Review Dimensions | Dimension | What to Check | Type | |-----------|--------------|------| | **Data Consistency** | Numbers in tables match text? **Actively recalculate** totals, percentages, and derived values from raw data — do not just check whether they "look right." If raw numbers are available, verify that reported percentages/scores are arithmetically correct. | [D] | | **Internal Logic** | Argument flows logically? Claims supported? Logical leaps? | [D] | | **Methodology Rigor** | Method selection rationale stated and internally consistent? | [D]/[S] | | **Quantitative checks** *(if applicable)* | Statistical test choices, sample size, validity/reliability — apply only for quantitative empirical work | [S]; definitive judgment [M] | | **Literature Review** | Research gap articulated? Key competing works cited? Gap justifies this study? | [D] for presence; [M] for citation accuracy | | **Citation adequacy** | Major claims backed by citations? Unsupported assertions? | [S]; whether source supports claim is [M] | | **Language & Style** | Typos, repeated chars (的的/了了), grammar errors (病句), punctuation misuse (中英文标点混用), inconsistent terminology, colloquial language in academic text, overly long/convoluted sentences | [D] | | **Factual accuracy (internal)** | Dates/numbers consistent *within this chapter*? | [D] | | **Factual accuracy (external)** | Real-world claims plausible? | [S]/[M] — flag only | | **Chapter Framing** | Opening bridges from previous chapter? Closing sets up next? | [D] | | **Chapter Proportion & Function** | Too short for its function? Too long and overloaded? | [D] | **Proactive expansion rule:** When the thesis uses a specific research method (survey, AHP, regression, case study, grounded theory, etc.), the agent must proactively apply that method's academic validation criteria — not just check the generic dimensions above. The agent's own domain knowledge is the source for method-specific checks; the skill does not enumerate them. See Appendix B for chapter-type-specific focus areas. #### 2.2 Special Section Responsibilities - **Abstracts** — Round 2: wording quality, terminology stability, grammar; whether abstract claims overstate the body - **References** — Round 2: flag uncited claims or mismatched citations **[S]**; whether cited source supports the claim is **[M]** - **Appendices** — Treat as a distinct Round 2 unit: questionnaires, interview guides, supplementary tables, coding schemes #### 2.x Iterative Mode: Two-Phase Per-Chapter Review **Applies only when `review_results.md` exists (iterative mode).** In iterative mode, each chapter review is split into two sequential phases to prevent anchoring bias: **Phase A: Independent Discovery (NO historical issues visible)** Input: Thesis summary block + current chapter full text + prior chapter summary cards Output format (to `review_working.md`): ```markdown ### 第X章 [章节名] - Phase A 独立发现 **审阅维度覆盖：** - [x] 数据一致性：[具体检查内容，如"核算了表4.2共5处百分比，均正确"] - [x] 内部逻辑：[具体检查内容，如"检查了论证链A→B→C，逻辑成立"] - [x] 方法严谨性：[具体检查内容] 或 [N/A - 本章无方法论内容] - [x] 文献引用：[具体检查内容] 或 [N/A] - [x] 语言规范：[具体检查内容，如"未发现病句或标点问题"] - [x] 章节衔接：[具体检查内容，如"开篇承接第2章结论，结尾为第4章铺垫"] **独立发现问题：** | 编号 | 严重度 | 问题 | 位置 | 类型 | |------|--------|------|------|------| | D-1 | 🟡 | ... | L123 | [D] | *若未发现新问题：* > 经独立审阅上述维度，本章未发现新问题。 ``` **Phase B: Historical Issue Verification (inject after Phase A completes)** Input: Phase A output + historical issues for this chapter (including relevant "全局" issues) Output format (to `review_working.md`): ```markdown ### 第X章 - Phase B 历史问题验证 **注入问题：** [#1] [#7] [#19-A] | 编号 | 原问题概述 | 验证结果 | 说明 | |------|-----------|----------|------| | [#1] | Wilcoxon Z/p矛盾 | ❌未修改 | L1965仍为Z=-5.059, p=0.593 | | [#7] | 研究问题未编号化 | ❌未修改 | L162-168仍为叙述式 | **章节摘要卡（定稿）：** [标准摘要卡格式] ``` **Sequencing Rule:** Phase A MUST be complete and output to working file BEFORE Phase B input is provided. The agent may NOT "peek ahead" at historical issues during Phase A. **Dimension Coverage Checklist Requirement:** The checklist in Phase A must include **specific descriptions** of what was checked (not just checkmarks). This serves as verifiable evidence that independent review was performed. #### 2.3 Required Output: Per-Chapter Summary Card Output after each chapter. Used by Round 3 for orientation and dependency map validation. ``` ## [章节编号] [章节标题] **核心论点：** 1-2句话 **承诺（本章对后续章节的承诺）：** - [例如"将在第4章用AHP验证该评价体系"] **交付（本章兑现了前序章节的哪些承诺）：** - [例如"兑现了第2章提出的三层指标框架"] **关键数据/定义：** 关键数字、术语定义、模型名称（供跨章核对） **本章问题摘要：** 🔴🟡问题概览（1-3条最关键的） ``` During Round 3 setup, compare summary cards against Round 1's dependency map: - Summary shows dependency Round 1 missed → **add to Round 3** - Round 1 mapped dependency no summary confirms → **demote or remove** Conflict with Round 1: default to Round 2 evidence (per Core Rules § Conflict Resolution). --- ### Round 3: Inter-Chapter Consistency Review **Input per pair:** Thesis summary block + both summary cards + both chapter full texts. In iterative mode: also receives cross-chapter prior issues for verification. **Pairs:** Merged from Round 1 dependency map + Round 2 summary card validation. #### Pair Selection Stopping Rule - **🔴 pairs** — mandatory - **🟡 pairs** — review only if summary cards show concrete promise/deliverable link or data/terminology risk; skip otherwise - **🟢 pairs** — skip unless user requests exhaustive mode #### Coverage Transparency Output at end of Round 3: ``` 章节配对审查覆盖情况： ✅ 已完成：第1章 → 第5章（🔴，研究问题→结论回应） ✅ 已完成：第3章 → 第4章（🔴，方法→结果兑现） ⏭ 已跳过：第2章 → 第3章（🟡，摘要卡无具体承诺/交付链接） ⏭ 已跳过：第4章 → 第5章（🟢，未进入本轮） ``` #### Spot Check Mechanism (Iterative Mode Only) **Purpose:** Validate Round 2 Phase A "无新发现" claims through targeted re-examination. Provides a deterrent against superficial review. **Trigger Conditions:** A spot check is triggered when ALL of the following are true: 1. A chapter's Phase A declared "本章未发现新问题" 2. AND that chapter has historical 🔴 issues OR 3+ historical 🟡 issues **Procedure:** 1. Select 1-2 subsections (500-1000 characters each) from the triggered chapter 2. Perform focused re-review on **two dimensions only**: data consistency + terminology consistency 3. Output result to `review_working.md` **Limits (Cost Control):** - Maximum **3 spot checks** per review cycle - Each spot check covers **500-1000 characters only** - Focus on **2 dimensions only** (data + terminology) **Output Format (to `review_working.md`):** ```markdown ### 抽查验证 **章节：** 第X章 §X.X（L###-L###） **抽查原因：** Phase A声明无新发现，但该章有历史🔴问题[#1][#5] **抽查维度：** 数据一致性、术语一致性 **抽查结果：** - ✅ 未发现Round 2遗漏的问题（支持Phase A声明） - ⚠️ 发现潜在遗漏（需补充至问题清单）： - [问题描述] ``` **Integration with Final Output:** - Spot check results are recorded in `review_working.md` only - If spot check finds omissions, add them to the consolidated issue list with tag `[抽查补充]` - `review_results.md` format remains unchanged (user does not see spot check details) #### Reading Strategy (per pair) **Full-text reading of both chapters is MANDATORY.** Summary cards are navigation index only. 1. Read both summary cards → understand expected promise/deliverable relationship and key data points 2. Read Chapter A in full → note claims, numbers, definitions, commitments 3. Read Chapter B in full → actively cross-check against Chapter A notes 4. Document all inconsistencies found **Long-input fallback:** If a chapter pair exceeds stable single-pass context, read each chapter in chunks but ensure a final cross-check pass covers all noted data points and commitments from both chapters before concluding. #### Pre-Round 3: Dependency Map Reconciliation 1. List Round 1's dependency pairs 2. Check each summary card's "承诺"/"交付" against Round 1's pairs 3. Produce **final pair list**: confirmed + newly discovered − demoted 4. Document changes briefly #### Review Checklist (per pair) | Item | What to Check | Type | |------|--------------|------| | **Terminology alignment** | Same concepts use same terms across chapters? | [D] | | **Data/number consistency** | Same statistics, sample sizes, dates consistent? | [D] | | **Scope alignment** | Chapter B delivers what A promised? B introduces undeclared scope? | [D] | | **Cross-reference suspicion scan** | Suspicious 图/表/章/节 references or numbering jumps? | [S]/[M] | | **Logical continuity** | Transition makes sense? Logical gaps or contradictions? | [D] | Cross-references are **not a primary hard-check item** — only flag suspicious cases for manual Word verification. --- ## Phase 3: Consolidation & Output After all 3 rounds, consolidate into a single **issue-centric** document. Each issue appears once; originating round noted in brackets. ### Output Files | File | Location | Content | |------|----------|---------| | `review_results.md` | Working directory | Final consolidated review (user-facing deliverable) | | `review_working_<YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS>.md` | `review_artifacts/` | Round 1 dependency map, Round 2 summary cards, Round 3 pair logs, all intermediate findings | | `thesis_full_text_<YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS>.txt` | `review_artifacts/` | Extracted plain text from docx (Phase 1 output) | **Directory structure:** ``` working_directory/ ├── review_results.md └── review_artifacts/ ├── thesis_full_text_20260325_143052.txt └── review_working_20260325_143052.md ``` **Notes:** - Create `review_artifacts/` directory if it does not exist - Timestamp format: `YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS` (local time) - Working file serves as execution evidence and traceability record - In iterative mode, each review cycle creates a new timestamped working file ### Working File Structure (Iterative Mode) In iterative mode, `review_working.md` must include the following sections to serve as execution evidence: ```markdown # 评审工作文档（第X版） ## Round 1: 宏观结构审阅 [依赖关系图 + 宏观发现] ## Round 2: 逐章深度审阅 ### 第1章 [章节名] - Phase A 独立发现 **审阅维度覆盖：** [详细checklist] **独立发现问题：** [列表或"无"] ### 第1章 - Phase B 历史问题验证 **注入问题：** [编号列表] **验证结果：** [表格] **章节摘要卡：** [标准格式] [...其他章节...] ## Round 3: 跨章一致性审阅 [配对审查记录] ## 抽查验证 [抽查记录，如有] ## 历史问题验证汇总 [所有历史问题的验证状态汇总表] ``` **Key Points:** - Phase A and Phase B records must be clearly separated - Dimension coverage checklist must include specific descriptions (not just checkmarks) - Spot check records (if any) must be included - This structure provides traceability for the review process ### Consolidation Rules **De-duplication:** Keep the most specific/actionable version of each issue. Other rounds noted as supporting evidence only. When merging related-but-distinct issues, verify they truly share the same root problem — two issues that share a *topic* (e.g., both about Chapter 1) but target different *defects* (e.g., tone vs. evidence gap) must remain separate entries. **Conflict resolution:** See Core Rules § Conflict Resolution. **Coverage verification (mandatory before finalizing):** Before writing the final output, confirm that every distinct finding from all 3 rounds is either included in the consolidated issue list, explicitly merged into another issue, or dropped with a stated reason. No finding may be silently lost. **Iterative mode — prior issue handling:** - All prior issues verified by the rounds are collected here - Issues marked ✅已修改 go into "修订情况核查" only (not into the problem list) - Issues marked ⚠️部分修改 go into both "修订情况核查" and the problem list (tagged `[部分修改]`) - Issues marked ❌未修改 go into both "修订情况核查" and the problem list (tagged `[延续]`) - Newly discovered issues in this review are tagged `[新发现]` in the problem list **Persistent issues:** If the same issue has been flagged across 3+ consecutive versions: 1. Acknowledge explicitly ("已连续N版提出") 2. Provide minimum-cost fix — exact replacement text + location 3. Assess defense risk 4. Version 4+: shift to "if you cannot fix, prepare an oral answer for defense" **Convergence criteria** (assess and report in 总体评价): - [ ] Zero 🔴 items - [ ] All 🟡 either fixed or accepted with defense prep - [ ] No new issues in full 3-round review - [ ] Suspicious cross-references flagged for manual Word check ### Output Template **Template instructions (do NOT include these in the final document):** - §一 修订情况核查: include only in iterative mode (prior `review_results.md` exists). Omit entirely in first-version mode. - §二 问题清单: contains ALL current open items (unfixed prior + partially fixed prior + newly discovered). In first-version mode, all issues are implicitly `[新发现]` and the tag may be omitted. - §三 收敛评估: include only in iterative mode. - [S] items must use uncertain wording ("疑似…""建议核查…"); [M] items must state what needs manual verification. ```markdown # 硕士学位论文评审意见（第X版） **论文题目：** ... **学位类别：** ... **评审日期：** ... --- ## 一、修订情况核查 | # | 原问题概述 | 原严重度 | 修改状态 | 评价 | |---|-----------|---------|---------|------| | 1 | ... | 🔴 | ✅已修改 | 数据已更正 | | 2 | ... | 🟡 | ⚠️部分修改 | 第2章已改，第4章仍有3处 | | 3 | ... | 🔴 | ❌未修改 | 仍缺失 | --- ## 二、本版问题清单 **排序：** 🔴优先，同级别按影响范围（全局 > 跨章 > 单章）排序。 每条格式： > **[编号] [🔴/🟡/🟢] [延续/部分修改/新发现] 问题标题** > - **位置：** 第X章 / 第X章→第Y章 / 全局 > - **来源：** [R1] / [R2] / [R3]（可多项） > - **验证状态：** [D]已确认 / [S]疑似 / [M]需人工核查 > - **问题描述：** 具体说明，引用原文 > - **修改建议：** 可操作的具体建议 ### 🔴 必须修改 ### 🟡 强烈建议修改 ### 🟢 建议修改 --- ## 三、总体评价 ### 优点（3-5条） ### 整体结论与修改优先级 ### 收敛评估 --- ## 四、审查覆盖情况 ### 4.1 章节配对覆盖（Round 3 coverage log） ### 4.2 人工核查待办（[M]类问题） - [ ] [具体项目] --- ## 五、答辩提醒（可选） ``` --- ## Output Specification - **Language:** Chinese, with English terms where academically standard - **Format:** Markdown (.md), filename `review_results.md` - **Tone:** Strict but constructive — every criticism paired with a specific fix suggestion - **Priority:** 🔴🟡🟢 consistently used across all rounds and versions --- # Part II: Reference Knowledge The following sections are **reference material** for the agent to consult during review. They are not execution rules. --- ## Appendix A: Default Dependency Patterns Common dependency pairs for standard thesis structure. Use as starting point for Round 1 dependency map. | Pair | What to Check | |------|---------------| | **Introduction → Literature Review** | Research questions fully covered by literature? Irrelevant literature present? | | **Introduction → Conclusion** | Every research question answered? Conclusion claims within intro scope? | | **Literature Review → Methodology** | Conceptual framework operationalized in method? Method justified by gap? Terminology consistent? | | **Methodology → Results** | Every described method/instrument executed and reported? Undescribed methods appearing? Variable names consistent? | | **Results → Discussion/Conclusion** | Every finding discussed? Over-interpretation beyond data? Statistical conclusions match data? | --- ## Appendix B: Chapter-Specific Focus Areas Additional focus when reviewing specific chapter types in Round 2. | Chapter Type | Additional Focus | |-------------|-----------------| | **Introduction** | Research gap specificity, innovation points clearly stated and not overstated, stated framework matches actual thesis structure | | **Literature Review / Theory** | Theory bloat (describe 5, use 2), citation format, gap analysis → methodology link | | **Methodology** | Rationale stated, internal consistency; *(if quantitative)* sample justification, validity/reliability, reproducibility | | **Results / Analysis** | Table-text data consistency; *(if quantitative)* test choices, hypotheses; *(if qualitative)* interpretation grounded in evidence | | **Discussion / Conclusion** | No over-interpretation, all questions answered, limitations honest; *(if practice-oriented)* actionable recommendations for practitioners, not just theoretical implications | | **English Abstract** | Grammar, non-idiomatic phrasing ("Aiming at", "Firstly/Secondly"), keyword consistency | | **Appendices** | Alignment with main text; *(if survey)* question design, scale coverage, response options | ---