hypothesis-full-review

hypothesis-full-review

Goal:

• Run the full literature-grounded review for a hypothesis.

Inputs:

• research_plan/RESEARCH_PLAN.json
• hypotheses/<id>/HYPOTHESIS.json
• literature/queries/<query_id>/EVIDENCE_BUNDLE.json produced by tools.search_literature(...)
• optional run-level review guidance from meta/INSIGHTS_FROM_REVIEWS.json

Outputs:

• hypotheses/<id>/REVIEW/FULL_REVIEW.json
• literature/queries/<query_id>/* search bridge artifacts when a new evidence query is required

Context Loading:

• Open skills/shared-references/schema-index.md.
• Open skills/shared-references/literature-search-contract.md.
• Open skills/shared-references/codex-reviewer-routing.md before using any optional Codex reviewer subagent route.
• Read packages/agent_contracts/literature.py before building or consuming search bridge artifacts.
• Read research_plan/RESEARCH_PLAN.json.
• Use research_goal as the review anchor.
• Use preferences as the detailed quality criteria.
• Use constraints as non-negotiable boundaries.
• Read hypotheses/<id>/HYPOTHESIS.json.
• If meta-review guidance exists, use it to calibrate recurring failure patterns without replacing local evidence.

Execution Prompt Contract:

• System Intent:
  • You are performing a thorough literature-grounded review of one hypothesis.
• Required Reasoning Focus:
  • Use tools.search_literature(run_dir, request) to gather the minimum external evidence needed to evaluate the hypothesis claims unless an existing evidence bundle already covers the same query.
  • If Codex reviewer subagents are available and explicitly useful for the review, they may inspect the same canonical artifacts, but the main thread must still validate and persist the canonical FULL_REVIEW.json.
  • If subagents are unavailable, execute the same review contract in the main thread and record reviewerRoute = local_main_thread when a reviewer route trace is written.
  • Treat the returned EvidenceBundleContract as the only formal external literature input.
  • Read retrieval_metadata.status before writing evidence-backed judgments.
  • If retrieval_metadata.status is partial, preserve the partial-source limitation in the affected review points instead of describing the review as comprehensive literature coverage.
  • Judge each preference axis with evidence-backed reasoning.
  • Judge each constraint with evidence-backed reasoning.
  • Be rigorous but fair; separate refinable issues from fundamental problems.
• Do Not Do:
  • Do not quote large parts of the hypothesis back verbatim.
  • Do not emit raw literature notes without turning them into structured review points.
  • Do not treat unsupported intuition as if it were grounded evidence.
  • Do not invent papers, DOIs, arXiv IDs, venues, citation counts, abstracts, or literature claims not present in the evidence bundle.
  • Do not use model memory as a substitute for search bridge artifacts.
  • Do not let a reviewer subagent write deterministic mechanics artifacts or bypass schema validation.
• Review Quality Floor:
  • A status = completed full review must include concrete preferences or constraints that name hypothesis-specific mechanisms, materials, reaction conditions, feasibility limits, evidence gaps, or experimental tests.
  • If external literature support is claimed, retrieval_results, evidence_bundle_ids, and literature_query_ids must remain traceable to search bridge artifacts.
  • If no external evidence can be retrieved, write specific non-literature constraints from the hypothesis and research plan; do not claim literature grounding.
  • Do not use placeholder review phrases such as Viable evolved hypothesis, Refined from parent, Must outperform parent, or Benchmark against parent as substantive review content.
• Output Shape:
  • Produce a structured review with the exact field shape of FullReviewContract from packages/agent_contracts/review.py:
    • preferences
    • constraints
  • Each point should be short, evidence-oriented, and useful to downstream refinement.