Create an agent team to process this feedback $ARGUMENTS.
Input: feedback on your work — reviewer comments, collaborator notes, PI comments, self-identified issues, or any combination.
Step 1 — Triage (parallel):
- •Skeptic: which critiques are valid vs. misunderstandings? Which point to real weaknesses?
- •Methodologist: which critiques require new analysis, experiments, or methodological changes?
- •Visionary: does addressing these critiques risk watering down the contribution? Where should we push back to protect the core claim?
Step 2 — Plan (depends on Step 1):
- •Lead: draft a revision plan and point-by-point response strategy. For each piece of feedback: concede, push back, or reframe?
- •Newcomer: check that proposed responses are clear and persuasive to outsiders
Step 3 — Debate:
- •All: where do we push back vs. concede? What's the minimum viable revision vs. the version that makes the work genuinely better?
Output: revision plan, response strategy, and list of additional work needed.