agentsclimarketplace

Pre submission report

Skill kenantang/codex-and-claude-skills/collected-academic-research-skills/sources/flonat__claude-research/skills/pre-submission-report

Use when you need all quality checks run before submission, producing a single dated report.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add kenantang/codex-and-claude-skills --skill pre-submission-report

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

4.8 KB, ~1.2k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Pre-Submission Report

Aggregates all quality checks into one dated report. Run before submitting to a journal/conference or sharing with collaborators.

When to Use

  • Before submitting a paper to a venue
  • Before sharing a draft with supervisors or co-authors
  • When the user says "pre-submission check", "is this ready?", "run everything"

Input

  • A .tex file path, or auto-detect paper/main.tex in the current project

Critical Rule

Python: Always use uv run python or uv pip install. Never bare python, python3, pip, or pip3. Include this in any sub-agent prompts.

Steps

1. Locate the Paper

If no argument provided, search for the main .tex file:

  1. Check paper/main.tex
  2. Check paper/*.tex for a file containing \begin{document}
  3. Ask the user if ambiguous

2. Integrity Gate (hard gate — must pass before quality checks)

Run these checks first. If any fail, stop and report — do not proceed to quality checks.

  1. Placeholder scan — grep the .tex file(s) for TODO, FIXME, XXX, TBD, [INSERT, PLACEHOLDER, Lorem ipsum. Any match is a FAIL.
  2. Citation integrity — invoke /bib-validate in verify mode. Every \cite{} key must resolve to a .bib entry. Any missing key is a FAIL.
  3. Section completeness — check that all standard sections exist and are non-empty (Abstract, Introduction, and at least one body section before Conclusion/References). An empty or missing section is a FAIL.
  4. Broken references — grep for ?? in the compiled PDF output or .log file (undefined \ref{} or \cite{}). Any ?? in output is a FAIL.

If any check fails:

INTEGRITY GATE: FAIL

Blockers (must fix before quality checks):
  - [ ] 3 TODO placeholders found (lines 47, 112, 289)
  - [ ] 2 undefined references (\ref{fig:missing}, \cite{nonexistent2024})
  - [ ] Abstract section is empty

Fix these and re-run /pre-submission-report.

If all pass: proceed to Step 3.

3. Run Quality Checks

Run these sequentially (each depends on a clean state):

  1. Compilation — invoke /latex on the main .tex file. Record pass/fail and any remaining warnings.
  2. Citation audit — invoke /bib-validate (full mode — deep verify). Record missing, unused, and suspect keys.
  3. Adversarial review — launch paper-critic agent (via Task tool). Capture the CRITIC-REPORT.md score and findings.

4. Aggregate Report

Save to log/audits/quality-reports/YYYY-MM-DD_<project-name>.md:

# Pre-Submission Quality Report

**Project:** <project name>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**File:** <path to main.tex>
**Target:** <venue from project CLAUDE.md, or "not specified">

---

## Integrity Gate: PASS / FAIL

- **Placeholders:** 0 found
- **Citation integrity:** all keys resolved
- **Section completeness:** all sections present
- **Broken references:** none

---

## Overall Score: XX/100 — [Verdict]

Verdict uses the quality scoring framework:
- 90-100: Publication-ready
- 80-89: Minor revisions needed
- 70-79: Significant revisions needed
- Below 70: Not ready

---

## Compilation

- **Status:** PASS / FAIL
- **Warnings:** <count>
- **Details:** <brief summary of any issues>

## Citations

- **Missing keys:** <count> — <list>
- **Unused keys:** <count> — <list>
- **Suspect entries:** <count> — <list>

## Adversarial Review

- **Score:** XX/100
- **Key findings:**
  - <finding 1>
  - <finding 2>
  - ...

## Research Quality Score

Load `skills/shared/research-quality-rubric.md` and report the weighted aggregate (X.X / 5.0) with verdict.

## Remaining Issues

| # | Severity | Category | Issue |
|---|----------|----------|-------|
| 1 | High/Medium/Low | Compilation/Citation/Content | <description> |

## Recommendation

**[Submit / Revise / Not ready]**

<1-2 sentence summary of what needs to happen before submission>

5. Present Summary

Display the report path and the summary table to the user. If the recommendation is "Submit", congratulate. If "Revise", list the top 3 issues to fix first.

Error Handling

  • If compilation fails after /latex, still run the remaining checks. Mark compilation as FAIL in the report.
  • If paper-critic agent fails, note it in the report and base the overall score on compilation + citations only.
  • Always produce the report file, even if some checks failed.

Integration

Skill/AgentRole in this workflow
/latexCompilation + auto-fix
/bib-validateCitation cross-reference
paper-critic agentAdversarial content review
quality-scoring.mdVerdict thresholds

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,499. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.