{
  "version": 3,
  "created_at": "2026-07-09T17:08:00.415Z",
  "task_summary": "Structured peer review with technical, biotech, and regulatory reviewer perspectives",
  "agents": [],
  "phases": [
    {
      "name": "Plan",
      "delegations": [
        {
          "steps": [
            {
              "title": "Assemble reviewer briefs for each expertise area",
              "description": "Create detailed reviewer personas and scope statements for three reviewers: (1) Structural Biology & Immunology — validates epitope selection logic, MHC-peptide modeling, Tr1 mechanism; (2) Biotech/Translational Development — assesses NP platform feasibility, manufacturing assumptions, IP/competitive landscape; (3) Regulatory/Clinical Affairs — evaluates FDA pathway, GLP requirements, IND precedent (teplizumab, food allergy therapeutics). Each reviewer brief specifies what they're evaluating and against what standards."
            },
            {
              "title": "Generate individual reviewer reports",
              "description": "For each reviewer, produce a structured report with: (a) major strengths (3–5 key wins), (b) significant concerns (any blockers or major gaps), (c) moderate-to-minor issues (validation needs, assumptions to test), (d) detailed recommendations (e.g., 'wheat epitope needs functional validation,' 'GLP pathway triggers IND pre-submission meeting'). ~1–2 pages per reviewer, markdown format."
            },
            {
              "title": "Create synthesis & consensus summary",
              "description": "Across all three reviewers, identify: (a) areas of strong consensus (e.g., dairy epitope is publication-ready, NP architecture realistic), (b) areas of disagreement or nuance (e.g., HLA allele breadth: biotech wants multi-HLA portfolio, regulatory says focus on highest-incidence first), (c) critical path items for next 12 months (Phase 1 human validation, wheat/soy T cell data, GMP scale-up). ~1–2 pages."
            },
            {
              "title": "Assemble risk/feasibility matrix & action plan",
              "description": "Create a table ranking all identified issues by impact (Go/No-go, Minor gate, Informative) and effort to resolve. Prioritize: high-impact, low-effort wins; flag low-impact sinks; note No-go risks and mitigation strategies. Include recommended timeline and resource allocation for next phase."
            },
            {
              "title": "Generate final peer review report",
              "description": "Compile all reviewer feedback into a single polished report (3–5 pages markdown) suitable for: (1) Ruth-Anne's final reference before manuscript submission, (2) biotech licensing partner to review pre-LOI discussion, (3) regulatory consultant for Phase 1/IND planning. Include executive summary, individual reviewer sections, synthesis, recommendations, and action items. Save as artifact."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "id": "phase-0"
    }
  ],
  "desired_outputs": [
    "Synthetic peer review report (multi-reviewer, PDF or markdown)",
    "Reviewer-specific feedback forms (technical, biotech, regulatory)",
    "Risk/feasibility matrix",
    "Recommendations for manuscript revision"
  ],
  "feasibility": {
    "confidence": "high",
    "rationale": "All deliverables are complete and accessible. Synthetic peer review can be generated by assembling structured feedback from three distinct perspectives (immunology/structure, biotech/development, regulatory/clinical). No external data required."
  }
}