/resubmit-pipeline

name: resubmit-pipeline
description: "Workflow 5: orchestrate a text-only resubmit of a polished paper to a different venue under hard constraints (no new experiments, no bib edits, no framework changes, never overwrite prior submissions). Use when user says \"resubmit pipeline\", \"重投流程\", \"port paper to <new venue>\", \"resubmit to <venue>\", \"tighten paper for resubmission\", or has a rejected/withdrawn paper to move to a different top venue under tight time budget."
argument-hint: "[paper-base-dir] [— target-venue: <name>] [— review-corpus: <path>]"
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Skill, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply

Resubmit Pipeline: Text-Only Microedit Mode

> **Before each reviewer slot**, follow [Selectable Reviewers](../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md): > resolve invocation → `.aris/reviewer.json` → Claude Code default (Codex MCP) > with `reviewer_route.py` through the canonical helper resolver, preserving this > slot's tier, fresh contexts, source/image inputs and deterministic gates. > Codex examples/pins below apply only to `backend=codex`; other routes use their > own first-call/reply contract. Save the route and actual returned identity; > unavailable selections are `REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE`. Classify acceptance from actual > families/completion/scope. Forward invocation reviewer/model/effort overrides > to reviewer-bearing children. Generation workers are unchanged.

Compose a polished paper into a new venue under text-only constraints: **$ARGUMENTS**

Why This Exists

Most ARIS writing workflows assume the input is either a narrative report (Workflow 3) or an in-progress paper that may still need experiments / bib changes / structural edits. Resubmit is a fundamentally different scope:

• The paper is **already polished** — proofs are done, experiments are done, bibliography is curated.
• The user wants to absorb prior reviewer concerns from a previous venue and re-submit, **without** introducing new experiments, new citations, or framework changes (LLM hallucination paranoia + tight resubmit timing + closed compute budget).
• The base submission directory is **read-only** — the new submission must compose into a sibling directory, never mutate prior state.
• Page limit may shrink between source and target venue (e.g., workshop camera-ready → 9-page main).

Existing skills cover adjacent territory but none of this exact composition: `/rebuttal` builds the OpenReview-style response document, not in-paper microedits; `/auto-paper-improvement-loop` is the per-round engine but presupposes someone has already chosen the base manuscript, migrated venue format, set the edit whitelist, queued the reviewer feedback, and decided what NOT to change. `/resubmit-pipeline` fills that orchestration gap.

When to Use

• A theory or system paper was rejected at venue A and you want to resubmit to venue B with tight time budget (≤ 1-2 weeks).
• You have **3 inputs ready**: the polished paper directory at venue A's format, the target venue B's format/template/style files, and the prior reviewer reports.
• You explicitly do **not** want to re-derive theorems, run new experiments, or change the bibliography.

When NOT to Use

• The paper still needs experiments — use `/experiment-bridge` → `/auto-review-loop` first.
• The paper still needs structural rewrites or new sections — use `/paper-writing` (Workflow 3).
• You want to write the rebuttal response itself — use `/rebuttal` (Workflow 4).
• The reviewer feedback demands new theorems or new framework — escalate to user before starting; this skill emits `BLOCKED` with `reason_code: out_of_scope_microedit` if it detects this case.

Constants

• **REVIEWER_MODEL** = inherits from `/auto-paper-improvement-loop`'s default (`gpt-6-astra` via Codex MCP) unless the user passes `— reviewer-model: gpt-5.4` (legacy) or another model valid for the selected backend. For `backend=codex`, reasoning effort is fixed at `xhigh` for all reviewer calls per the existing skill convention.
• **ROUNDS** = 2 (default; matches `/auto-paper-improvement-loop`'s diminishing-returns line). A 3rd round only fires if Phase 2 reports non-convergence AND the user explicitly approves at the round-2 checkpoint.
• **EFFORT** = `max` (default for resubmit; resubmit is high-stakes). The user can override with `— effort: balanced` if time is extremely tight.
• **EDIT_WHITELIST_PATH** = `<paper-base-dir>/../<NewVenue>/.aris/edit_whitelist.yaml` (auto-generated in Phase 0; user can override with a custom path).
• **NEVER_OVERWRITE** = true (always; this is a hard contract — prior submission directories are immutable).
• **ASSURANCE_LEVEL** = `submission` (default; resubmit always targets a real submission).

Inputs

Three mandatory inputs:

1. **`paper-base-dir`** — the polished paper at venue A's format. Must contain `main.tex` (or equivalent entry), `sec/` or `sections/`, `references.bib` (or equivalent), and a compiled `main.pdf` (used for visual review). 2. **`— target-venue: <name>`** — one of: `iclr`, `icml`, `neurips`, `aaai`, `ijcai`, `colm`, `tmlr`, `uai`, or `other`. The skill expects venue style files at `<paper-base-dir>/templates/<venue>.{sty,tex,bst}` or in a recognized template directory. If `other`, the user passes `— target-style-dir: <path>`. 3. **`— review-corpus: <path>`** — directory containing prior venue's reviewer reports as `.txt` or `.md` files (one per reviewer, ideally). If `--review-corpus` is omitted, the skill emits `BLOCKED` with `reason_code: missing_review_corpus` because the whole point of resubmit is absorbing those concerns.

Optional:

• **`— reviewer-model: gpt-5.4`** — override the default reviewer (`gpt-6-astra`); use this for legacy reproducibility or to consume the older quota tier.
• **`— rounds: <int>`** — override default 2.
• **`— assurance: draft`** — relax MANDATORY gates (default `submission`).
• **`— effort: balanced`** — relax `max` if time is critical.
• **`— skip