"""
Peer Review Analyzer Agent

Analyzes peer review feedback, identifies common themes, and provides
structured guidance for manuscript revision and improvement.
"""

from typing import Any, Dict, List
from agents.base import BaseAgent


class PeerReviewAnalyzerAgent(BaseAgent):
    """
    Peer review analysis and manuscript revision agent.

    Capabilities:
    - Review comment analysis and categorization
    - Priority assessment of revisions
    - Response letter drafting
    - Revision tracking and management
    - Common critique identification
    - Revision strategy development
    - Rebuttal preparation
    """

    def __init__(self):
        super().__init__(
            name='peer-review-analyzer',
            description='Analyze peer reviews and guide revisions',
            category='research',
            version='1.0.0',
            tags=['peer-review', 'revision', 'manuscript', 'feedback', 'research']
        )

    async def execute(self, params: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Analyze peer review feedback.

        Args:
            params: {
                'manuscript_id': str,
                'reviews': List[Dict],
                'editor_comments': str,
                'review_round': int,
                'journal': str,
                'options': {
                    'categorize_comments': bool,
                    'prioritize_revisions': bool,
                    'draft_response': bool,
                    'track_changes': bool
                }
            }

        Returns:
            {
                'status': 'success|failed',
                'analysis_id': str,
                'review_summary': Dict,
                'revision_plan': Dict,
                'response_letter': str,
                'recommendations': List[str]
            }
        """
        manuscript_id = params.get('manuscript_id')
        reviews = params.get('reviews', [])
        editor_comments = params.get('editor_comments')
        review_round = params.get('review_round', 1)
        options = params.get('options', {})

        self.logger.info(
            f"Analyzing peer reviews for manuscript {manuscript_id}, round {review_round}"
        )

        # Mock peer review analysis
        review_summary = {
            'total_reviewers': 3,
            'recommendation_summary': {
                'reviewer_1': 'Accept with minor revisions',
                'reviewer_2': 'Major revisions required',
                'reviewer_3': 'Accept with minor revisions'
            },
            'overall_recommendation': 'Major revisions',
            'tone_assessment': {
                'reviewer_1': 'Supportive and constructive',
                'reviewer_2': 'Critical but fair',
                'reviewer_3': 'Enthusiastic'
            },
            'total_comments': 47,
            'comment_categorization': {
                'major_concerns': 15,
                'minor_concerns': 22,
                'positive_comments': 10,
                'editorial_issues': 5,
                'methodological': 18,
                'theoretical': 8,
                'writing_clarity': 6
            }
        }

        detailed_comments = {
            'major_revisions_required': [
                {
                    'reviewer': 'Reviewer 2',
                    'comment': 'The sample size justification needs stronger statistical grounding. Please provide power analysis details.',
                    'category': 'methodology',
                    'section': 'Methods',
                    'priority': 'high',
                    'suggested_action': 'Add detailed power analysis section with calculations',
                    'estimated_effort': 'Medium'
                },
                {
                    'reviewer': 'Reviewer 2',
                    'comment': 'The discussion of limitations is insufficient. More critical reflection needed.',
                    'category': 'discussion',
                    'section': 'Discussion',
                    'priority': 'high',
                    'suggested_action': 'Expand limitations section with specific examples',
                    'estimated_effort': 'Low'
                },
                {
                    'reviewer': 'Reviewer 1',
                    'comment': 'Please clarify the randomization procedure. Was allocation concealment used?',
                    'category': 'methodology',
                    'section': 'Methods',
                    'priority': 'high',
                    'suggested_action': 'Add detailed randomization and concealment procedures',
                    'estimated_effort': 'Low'
                }
            ],
            'minor_revisions': [
                {
                    'reviewer': 'Reviewer 1',
                    'comment': 'Table 2 formatting could be improved for clarity',
                    'category': 'presentation',
                    'section': 'Results',
                    'priority': 'low',
                    'suggested_action': 'Reformat Table 2 with clearer column headers',
                    'estimated_effort': 'Low'
                },
                {
                    'reviewer': 'Reviewer 3',
                    'comment': 'Some recent 2024 citations could strengthen the literature review',
                    'category': 'literature',
                    'section': 'Introduction',
                    'priority': 'medium',
                    'suggested_action': 'Add 3-5 recent citations from 2024',
                    'estimated_effort': 'Medium'
                },
                {
                    'reviewer': 'Reviewer 2',
                    'comment': 'Please define all abbreviations at first use',
                    'category': 'editorial',
                    'section': 'Throughout',
                    'priority': 'low',
                    'suggested_action': 'Review and define all abbreviations',
                    'estimated_effort': 'Low'
                }
            ],
            'positive_feedback': [
                {
                    'reviewer': 'Reviewer 3',
                    'comment': 'The study design is rigorous and well-executed',
                    'category': 'methodology'
                },
                {
                    'reviewer': 'Reviewer 1',
                    'comment': 'The statistical analysis is appropriate and well-reported',
                    'category': 'analysis'
                },
                {
                    'reviewer': 'Reviewer 3',
                    'comment': 'This work makes an important contribution to the field',
                    'category': 'significance'
                }
            ]
        }

        revision_plan = {
            'priority_matrix': {
                'high_priority_high_effort': [
                    'Add comprehensive power analysis section',
                    'Conduct additional sensitivity analyses'
                ],
                'high_priority_low_effort': [
                    'Clarify randomization procedures',
                    'Expand limitations discussion',
                    'Define all abbreviations'
                ],
                'medium_priority': [
                    'Add recent 2024 citations',
                    'Improve figure quality',
                    'Clarify theoretical framework'
                ],
                'low_priority': [
                    'Reformat tables',
                    'Minor grammatical corrections',
                    'Update reference formatting'
                ]
            },
            'estimated_timeline': {
                'major_revisions': '2-3 weeks',
                'minor_revisions': '1 week',
                'response_letter': '3-4 days',
                'co_author_review': '1 week',
                'total_estimated_time': '4-5 weeks'
            },
            'revision_checklist': [
                {'task': 'Add power analysis details', 'priority': 'high', 'completed': False},
                {'task': 'Expand limitations section', 'priority': 'high', 'completed': False},
                {'task': 'Clarify randomization', 'priority': 'high', 'completed': False},
                {'task': 'Add recent citations', 'priority': 'medium', 'completed': False},
                {'task': 'Reformat Table 2', 'priority': 'low', 'completed': False},
                {'task': 'Define abbreviations', 'priority': 'low', 'completed': False},
                {'task': 'Proofread entire manuscript', 'priority': 'medium', 'completed': False}
            ]
        }

        response_letter_draft = """
Dear Editor,

We thank you and the reviewers for the thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled "The Impact of AI-Assisted Learning Tools on Academic Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial." We have carefully considered all comments and have substantially revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer's comments.

REVIEWER 1:

Comment 1.1: "The sample size justification needs stronger statistical grounding. Please provide power analysis details."

Response: We agree this is an important addition. We have added a detailed power analysis section (Methods, page 8, lines 245-267) that includes:
- A priori power calculation showing required n=240 (120 per group) to detect d=0.5 at 80% power
- Post-hoc achieved power of 85% based on observed effect size
- Sensitivity analysis showing minimum detectable effect sizes at various power levels

Comment 1.2: "Please clarify the randomization procedure. Was allocation concealment used?"

Response: Thank you for this important clarification. We have expanded the randomization section (Methods, page 7, lines 198-215) to explicitly describe:
- Computer-generated random number sequence
- Stratified block randomization by age and baseline performance
- Central allocation system ensuring allocation concealment
- Blinding of outcome assessors to group assignment

REVIEWER 2:

Comment 2.1: "The discussion of limitations is insufficient. More critical reflection needed."

Response: We appreciate this feedback and have substantially expanded the limitations section (Discussion, page 18, lines 567-612). We now discuss:
- Potential selection bias from voluntary participation
- Limited generalizability to other educational contexts
- Short follow-up period limiting conclusions about long-term effects
- Possibility of Hawthorne effects
- Unmeasured confounders

[Additional responses would continue...]

We believe these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript and hope you will find it suitable for publication in [Journal Name].

Sincerely,
The Authors
"""

        return {
            'status': 'success',
            'analysis_id': 'PRA-20251116-001',
            'manuscript_id': manuscript_id,
            'review_round': review_round,
            'timestamp': '2025-11-16T00:00:00Z',
            'review_summary': review_summary,
            'detailed_comments': detailed_comments,
            'revision_plan': revision_plan,
            'response_letter_draft': response_letter_draft,
            'reviewer_expertise_assessment': {
                'reviewer_1': {
                    'expertise_level': 'High',
                    'knowledge_areas': ['Research methodology', 'Statistics'],
                    'tone': 'Constructive',
                    'detail_level': 'Detailed'
                },
                'reviewer_2': {
                    'expertise_level': 'Very High',
                    'knowledge_areas': ['Educational technology', 'Learning sciences'],
                    'tone': 'Critical but fair',
                    'detail_level': 'Very detailed'
                },
                'reviewer_3': {
                    'expertise_level': 'High',
                    'knowledge_areas': ['AI in education', 'Quantitative methods'],
                    'tone': 'Enthusiastic',
                    'detail_level': 'Moderate'
                }
            },
            'common_themes': [
                'Need for more detailed methodology section',
                'Request for additional statistical details',
                'Desire for expanded discussion of limitations',
                'Suggestions for additional recent citations',
                'Minor formatting and clarity improvements needed'
            ],
            'disagreements_between_reviewers': [
                {
                    'topic': 'Sample size adequacy',
                    'reviewer_1_position': 'Adequate if justified',
                    'reviewer_2_position': 'Needs stronger justification',
                    'suggested_resolution': 'Provide detailed power analysis to satisfy both'
                }
            ],
            'editor_guidance': {
                'decision': 'Major revisions',
                'key_concerns': [
                    'Address Reviewer 2\'s methodological concerns thoroughly',
                    'Expand limitations discussion',
                    'Ensure all statistical reporting is complete'
                ],
                'resubmission_deadline': '8 weeks',
                'reviewer_preference': 'Same reviewers will re-review'
            },
            'strategic_advice': {
                'addressing_critical_reviewer': [
                    'Acknowledge validity of concerns explicitly',
                    'Provide comprehensive, detailed responses',
                    'Make substantial revisions, not just superficial changes',
                    'Show appreciation for thorough review'
                ],
                'maximizing_acceptance_chances': [
                    'Address ALL comments, even minor ones',
                    'Highlight major improvements in cover letter',
                    'Use tracked changes to show all modifications',
                    'Be diplomatic in response letter',
                    'Over-deliver on revisions when possible'
                ]
            },
            'revision_statistics': {
                'total_comments_to_address': 47,
                'high_priority': 15,
                'medium_priority': 22,
                'low_priority': 10,
                'sections_requiring_revision': {
                    'Methods': 8,
                    'Results': 5,
                    'Discussion': 12,
                    'Introduction': 6,
                    'Throughout': 4
                }
            },
            'recommendations': [
                'Begin with high-priority, high-impact revisions',
                'Address Reviewer 2\'s concerns comprehensively',
                'Document all changes in response letter',
                'Use track changes in revised manuscript',
                'Consider adding supplementary materials for additional details',
                'Have co-authors review response letter',
                'Proofread entire manuscript again',
                'Check journal-specific revision guidelines',
                'Stay within resubmission deadline',
                'Maintain professional, grateful tone in response'
            ],
            'potential_challenges': [
                {
                    'challenge': 'Limited time for extensive new analyses',
                    'solution': 'Prioritize critical analyses, explain what\'s feasible'
                },
                {
                    'challenge': 'Reviewer requests may conflict',
                    'solution': 'Address each separately, explain rationale for approach taken'
                }
            ],
            'files_to_prepare': [
                'revised_manuscript_tracked_changes.docx',
                'revised_manuscript_clean.docx',
                'response_to_reviewers.docx',
                'supplementary_materials_updated.pdf',
                'resubmission_cover_letter.docx',
                'revision_summary.txt'
            ],
            'next_steps': [
                'Create detailed revision timeline',
                'Assign tasks to co-authors if applicable',
                'Start with high-priority methodology revisions',
                'Draft detailed response letter',
                'Track all changes systematically',
                'Schedule co-author review meeting',
                'Final proofread before resubmission',
                'Submit well before deadline'
            ]
        }

    def validate_params(self, params: Dict[str, Any]) -> bool:
        """Validate peer review analysis parameters."""
        if 'manuscript_id' not in params:
            self.logger.error("Missing required field: manuscript_id")
            return False

        reviews = params.get('reviews', [])
        if not reviews or len(reviews) == 0:
            self.logger.error("At least one review is required")
            return False

        return True
