Submission pipeline

Skill tansuasici/claude-research-kit/.claude/skills/submission-pipeline

Pre-submission review battery — runs the peer-reviewer, integrity-reviewer, and fact-checker agents plus the deterministic audits in parallel over the whole manuscript, dedupes, confidence-gates, and saves one go/no-go report.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add tansuasici/claude-research-kit --skill submission-pipeline

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

One thing to look at

2 stars2 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

4.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Submission Pipeline

Core Rule

Before submission, run every reviewer lens at once, dedupe across them, keep only findings that survive a confidence gate, and produce a single go/no-go report with a submission checklist. This is breadth-first (the whole manuscript, all lenses) — distinct from /peer-review (one referee report) and /claim-check (depth on each claim). It reports; it does not edit. Fixing a flagged claim is the author's call (and a Protected Claim).

When to Use

Invoke with /submission-pipeline when:

The manuscript is draft-complete and you want a pre-submission sweep
You want to pre-empt Reviewer 2 across rigor, integrity, and facts in one pass
Running headless (/submission-pipeline mode:headless) to produce a report artifact

Process

Phase 1 — Scope

Read MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md (thesis, contribution, venue) and assemble the manuscript file set (main.tex + \input sections). Note the target venue for /journal-fit.

Phase 2 — Parallel review (run together, don't serialize)

Dispatch in parallel:
- peer-reviewer agent — novelty, soundness, claim↔evidence, structure, recommendation.
- integrity-reviewer agent — overclaim, p-hacking/HARKing, citation misuse, missing limitations.
- fact-checker agent — claim-by-claim Supported / Overstated / Unsupported / Uncited.
In parallel, run the deterministic + checklist audits and collect their results:
- /citation-audit (dangling/orphan/malformed refs), current compile-gate verdict, figure-orphan state.
- /stats-check (statistical reporting), /methods-review (reproducibility), /journal-fit (venue fit), /gap-finder (uncited/unsupported sweep).

Phase 3 — Dedupe & merge

Many lenses will flag the same sentence (e.g. an overclaim caught by peer-reviewer, integrity-reviewer, and fact-checker). Merge by (file, locator, claim) into one finding that records which lenses raised it (agreement = signal).

Phase 4 — Confidence gate

Keep a finding if any of:
- a deterministic check produced it (dangling \cite, undefined ref, missing field) — always high-confidence;
- ≥2 independent lenses agree on it;
- it is a single-lens finding rated high-severity by that lens (e.g. an unsupported central claim). Drop or mark low-confidence the single-lens, low-severity findings so the report is signal, not noise. Log what was dropped (no silent truncation).

Phase 5 — Report

Write the report to reports/submission-review-<date>.md (and surface a summary). Include a go / revise / no-go recommendation tied to the findings, and a submission checklist.

Output Format

# Submission Review — <title> → <venue>   (<date>)
Recommendation: GO | REVISE | NO-GO  — <one-line reason>

## Blocking (must fix before submission)
- [file:locator] <finding> — lenses: {peer, integrity, fact, deterministic} — fix: <…>

## Should-fix
- ...

## Consider
- ...  (low-confidence / single-lens — listed, not emphasized)

## Deterministic status
- citation-gate: <pass/FAIL>   compile-gate: <pass/skip/FAIL>   figure-orphan: <clean/N>
- citation-audit: <N issues>   stats: <N>   methods reproducibility: <PASS/GAP list>

## Submission checklist
- [ ] All \cite resolve · compile clean · no orphan floats
- [ ] Limitations section present · no causal overclaim · effect sizes + CIs
- [ ] Venue: length / reference style / display-item limits (confirm in author guidelines)
- [ ] Data/code availability statement · declarations
- [ ] Abstract numbers match the body

## Dropped (low-confidence, for transparency)
- <count> single-lens low-severity findings

Pairs With

peer-reviewer / integrity-reviewer / fact-checker agents; /peer-review, /citation-audit, /stats-check, /methods-review, /journal-fit, /gap-finder; the citation-gate / compile-gate / figure-orphan hooks. Research analogue of the code kit's /review-pipeline.

Notes

Headless (mode:headless): emits the report artifact to reports/ and a short summary; no interactive prompts.
Never auto-edits. Every fix to a reported claim is a Protected Claim — the author decides. The pipeline's job is to find, dedupe, and rank.
No silent caps. If coverage is bounded (e.g. only changed sections), say so in the report.
Distinct from /project-health-style breadth: this is submission-readiness, gated on the venue and the cardinal rule.