
This is the fifth stage of the PaperOrchestra pipeline, where an initial draft gets iteratively refined through simulated peer review. It runs about three rounds of review-then-revise, checking each iteration against a six-axis rubric (scientific depth, technical execution, logical flow, writing clarity, evidence presentation, academic style). The score delta determines whether to accept the revision or revert to the previous snapshot, and the loop halts on revert or when no actionable weaknesses remain. The paper claims refinement alone added 19-22% to acceptance rates in their experiments. You get snapshots of every iteration, a worklog of decisions, and gates that check for hallucinated claims against your experimental log. Costs around five to seven LLM calls per run, mostly on the reviewer and revision prompts.
$ npx -y skills add ar9av/paperorchestra --skill content-refinement-agent --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Faithful implementation of the Content Refinement Agent from PaperOrchestra (Song et al., 2026, arXiv:2604.05018, §4 Step 5, App. F.1 pp. 49–51).
Cost: ~5–7 LLM calls (App. B), typically ~3 refinement iterations, each consisting of one reviewer call and one revision call.
The paper highlights this step as one of the largest contributors to overall quality: refinement alone accounts for +19% (CVPR) and +22% (ICLR) absolute acceptance-rate improvement (Fig. 4). Get this step right.
workspace/drafts/paper.tex — output of Step 4workspace/inputs/conference_guidelines.mdworkspace/inputs/experimental_log.md — used as ground truth for the
hallucination checkworkspace/citation_pool.json / workspace/refs.bib — the allowed
bibliographyworkspace/refinement/iter1/, iter2/, iter3/ — per-iteration snapshots
containing paper.tex, paper.pdf, review.json, score.jsonworkspace/refinement/worklog.json — append-only history of decisionsworkspace/final/paper.tex and workspace/final/paper.pdf — copy of the
best accepted snapshotSponsors