Add AI research review workflows

prompts/ablate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+---
+description: Design the smallest convincing ablation set for an AI research project.
+---
+Design an ablation plan for: $@
+
+Requirements:
+- Identify the exact claims the paper is making.
+- For each claim, determine what ablation or control is necessary to support it.
+- Prefer the `verifier` subagent when the claim structure is complicated.
+- Distinguish:
+  - must-have ablations
+  - nice-to-have ablations
+  - unnecessary experiments
+- Call out where benchmark norms imply mandatory controls.
+- Optimize for the minimum convincing set, not experiment sprawl.
+- Save the plan to `outputs/` as markdown if the user wants a durable artifact.
+- End with a `Sources` section containing direct URLs for any external sources used.

prompts/rebuttal.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+description: Turn reviewer comments into a structured rebuttal and revision plan for an AI research paper.
+---
+Prepare a rebuttal workflow for: $@
+
+Requirements:
+- If reviewer comments are provided, organize them into a response matrix.
+- If reviewer comments are not yet provided, infer the likely strongest objections from the current draft and review them before drafting responses.
+- Prefer the `reviewer` subagent or the project `review` chain when fresh critical review is still needed.
+- For each issue, produce:
+  - reviewer concern
+  - whether it is valid
+  - evidence available now
+  - paper changes needed
+  - rebuttal language
+- Do not overclaim fixes that have not been implemented.
+- Save the rebuttal matrix to `outputs/` as markdown.
+- End with a `Sources` section containing direct URLs for all inspected external sources.

prompts/related.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+description: Build a related-work map and justify why an AI research project needs to exist.
+---
+Build the related-work and justification view for: $@
+
+Requirements:
+- Search for the closest and strongest relevant papers first.
+- Prefer the `researcher` subagent when the space is broad or moving quickly.
+- Identify:
+  - foundational papers
+  - closest prior work
+  - strongest recent competing approaches
+  - benchmarks and evaluation norms
+  - critiques or known weaknesses in the area
+- For each important paper, explain why it matters to this project.
+- Be explicit about what real gap remains after considering the strongest prior work.
+- If the project is not differentiated enough, say so clearly.
+- Save the artifact to `outputs/` as markdown if the user wants a durable result.
+- End with a `Sources` section containing direct URLs.

prompts/review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+description: Simulate an AI research peer review with likely objections, severity, and a concrete revision plan.
+---
+Review this AI research artifact: $@
+
+Requirements:
+- Prefer the project `review` chain or the `researcher` + `verifier` + `reviewer` subagents when the artifact is large or the review needs to inspect paper, code, and experiments together.
+- Inspect the strongest relevant sources directly before making strong review claims.
+- If the artifact is a paper or draft, evaluate:
+  - novelty and related-work positioning
+  - clarity of claims
+  - baseline fairness
+  - evaluation design
+  - missing ablations
+  - reproducibility details
+  - whether conclusions outrun the evidence
+- If code or experiment artifacts exist, compare them against the claimed method and evaluation.
+- Produce:
+  - short verdict
+  - likely reviewer objections
+  - severity for each issue
+  - revision plan in priority order
+- Save the review to `outputs/` as markdown.
+- End with a `Sources` section containing direct URLs for every inspected external source.