fix: better summary prompt

Author: Junyi-99

src/app.ts

@@ -95,10 +95,14 @@ app.post(
         // 所以 anchorText 给 section 的第一句话就够了。
         const matchedSection = parsed.sections.find((section) => section.title === result.section);
         const content = (matchedSection?.content as string) || '';
+        
+        // Get first sentence or first line, whichever is shorter
         const firstSentence = content.split(/[.!?](?:\s|$)/)[0] + '.';
+        const firstLine = content.split('\n')[0]?.trim() || '';
+        const anchorText = firstSentence.length <= firstLine.length ? firstSentence : firstLine;
         return {
           section: result.section,
-          anchorText: firstSentence,
+          anchorText: anchorText,
           ...summary.weaknesses[index],
         };
       })

src/templates/paper-review-summary-weakness.njk

@@ -1,32 +1,25 @@
-You are an expert academic researcher. Given a full peer review of a research paper, your task is to find and summarize its critical weaknesses from the peer review. Please complete the following:
+# Instruction
 
-1. Summary of the review: Provide a concise summary (max 300 characters) highlighting "critical" weaknesses of the paper, intended to inform the author. Do not include introductory phrases like “Summary of the review”.
+what are the core ideas in the review? I think the reviews are too long. Please summarize the core ideas from the review, boiled down and condensed, and indicate the importance level of each review.
 
-2. Weaknesses: List specific critical weaknesses identified in the review. Each should be a standalone issue, written clearly and concisely within 300 characters. (along with the importance level)
-
-<IMPORTANCE_LEVELS>
+## Importance Levels
 - Critical: Addresses fundamental flaws affecting the research's validity, clarity, or rigor. Must be resolved for the work to be publishable.
 - High: Substantive improvements that strengthen credibility and relevance, but do not undermine core arguments.
 - Medium: Improvements that enhance clarity, completeness, or accessibility, though their absence does not compromise the main contribution.
 - Low: Minor suggestions that polish the paper; helpful but non-essential.
-</IMPORTANCE_LEVELS>
-
-This is the full peer review:
-
-<PEER_REVIEW>
-{{ fullReview }}
-</PEER_REVIEW>
 
----
-
-Please provide your output in the following way:
+## Your response format
 
+```
 <SUMMARY>
-[Concise summary of strengths and weaknesses]
+[summary of all reviews]
 </SUMMARY>
 
-<WEAKNESSES>
-- [first weakness] (importance: [level])
-- [second weakness] (importance: [level])
-...
-</WEAKNESSES>
+<SUGGESTIONS>
+- [suggestion] (importance: [importance level])
+</SUGGESTIONS>
+```
+
+# Here is the review:
+
+{{fullReview}}