engineering-validation
Skill3 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub
Validate English engineering manuscript readiness before claiming edits are complete. Use when the user asks to check a paper, compile LaTeX, inspect references, page count, citations, figure/table consistency, claim-evidence anchors, final-paper synchronization, submission checklist, or whether a conference/journal manuscript is safe to submit. This is readiness validation, not certification that experiments, citations, or claims are true unless the relevant sources and checks were actually provided and inspected.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this skill before saying a paper edit is complete, fixed, or ready.
- Distinctive: line 12
No verification, no completion claim.
- Distinctive: line 15
Treat evidence anchors, citations, figures, tables, and PDF output as part of manuscript correctness.
- Distinctive: line 25
Use this skill for readiness checks, not for drafting new manuscript prose.
- Very specific: line 26
Use engineering-writing when the user needs new section structure or claim-evidence planning before validation.
- Very specific: line 28
Use engineering-polishing for prose-only improvements.
- Very specific: line 29
Use engineering-figure-table for visual design before final consistency checks.
- Very specific: line 31
Use engineering-response for reviewer/advisor reply drafting before final response package validation.
- Distinctive: line 102
Read local instructions and relevant build files.
- Distinctive: line 103
Check structure anchors: thesis, contribution list, main results, ablation, limitations.
- Distinctive: line 105
Check story spine: Abstract and Conclusion claims must have Methods, Experiments, figure/table, and boundary anchors.
- Very specific: line 107
Check figures, tables, captions, labels, and category/metric names.
- Distinctive: line 111
Run the smallest relevant build and consistency commands.
- Very specific: line 112
If tools or files are unavailable, mark command-dependent checks NOT_RUN and perform only the file-based or local-text audit that evidence …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Engineering Validation
Use this skill before saying a paper edit is complete, fixed, or ready.
Core Stance
- No verification, no completion claim.
- A dry read is not a build check.
- Report exactly what was run and what was not run.
- Treat evidence anchors, citations, figures, tables, and PDF output as part of manuscript correctness.
- For existing paper repos, read the current live draft and project-specific instructions before validating.
- This is readiness validation, not truth certification. Never certify experiment truth, citation truth, or venue compliance without the relevant source files, tools, and checks.
Boundaries
- Use this skill for readiness checks, not for drafting new manuscript prose.
- Use
engineering-writingwhen the user needs new section structure or claim-evidence planning before validation. - Use
engineering-polishingfor prose-only improvements. - Use
engineering-figure-tablefor visual design before final consistency checks. - Use
engineering-responsefor reviewer/advisor reply drafting before final response package validation.
Status Vocabulary
PASS: checked directly and no issue found.FAIL: checked directly and an issue was found.PARTIAL: checked only in part; name the unchecked part.NOT_RUN: check was relevant but not run.UNKNOWN: cannot determine from provided material.
Overall readiness can only be READY, NOT_READY, or CANNOT_DETERMINE.
READY is allowed only when every required check for the user's stated goal is
PASS. If any required check is FAIL, PARTIAL, NOT_RUN, or UNKNOWN,
overall readiness must be NOT_READY or CANNOT_DETERMINE.
LaTeX Consistency Checker
Run python3 scripts/paper_check.py path/to/main.tex [--bib refs.bib] [--json]
(the script lives in this skill's scripts/ directory; standard library only).
It follows \input/\include and reports, with file:line:
- errors: duplicate
\labelkeys, references to undefined labels, citation keys missing from the bibliography, a declared bibliography that cannot be read; - warnings: floats never referenced, figures or tables first referenced out of
numeric order (in source, and in the compiled numbering when a
.auxfile is found or passed with--aux), success rates that are impossible for the stated number of trials (heuristic; it skips aggregated values and reports ambiguous trial counts as info), average or total columns that do not match their row, and prose values that contradict the table cell they name (heuristic; silent when the match is ambiguous); - info: uncited bibliography entries, prose percentages that appear in no table, and anything it could not check (an input file outside the project, a dynamic macro argument).
It skips macro definitions, verbatim-like environments, and \iffalse blocks,
and treats only \% and siunitx forms as percentages. Without a .aux file
it reads source order only. It does not expand general macros, so numbers
defined through \newcommand are not checked.
Report its output verbatim as one check in the readiness table; a clean run is
evidence for these checks only.
When to Open Extra Files
| File | Open when |
| references/live-draft-check.md | Confirming source draft, input order, title, author/blind state, or final sync |
| references/latex-build.md | Compiling LaTeX, checking bibitem count, page count, warnings, or diff checks |
| references/evidence-audit.md | Checking contributions, claims, section anchors, citations, and overclaims |
| references/final-readonly-check.md | Running the final 30-minute style read-only inspection |
| references/error-archive.md | Diagnosing common manuscript failure symptoms and the first section to inspect |
| references/submission-checklist.md | Final read-only inspection before submission |
| references/venue-checklist.md | Venue family changes limits, reproducibility, checklist, or AI-disclosure requirements |
| references/citation-metadata-check.md | Citation existence, DOI, venue, year, or BibTeX consistency needs verification |
| references/ai-disclosure-check.md | AI-assisted writing, citation, or figure generation may require author verification or disclosure |
| references/examples.md | Needing concrete validation report examples |
| references/failure-modes.md | Handling requests to certify readiness without running checks |
| ../_shared/story-spine.md | Checking whether Abstract/Conclusion claims match Methods/Experiments evidence |
| ../_shared/evidence-boundary.md | Validation touches claims, citations, results, or completion status |
| ../_shared/citation-boundary.md | Citation existence, citation placement, or reference claims are part of the check |
| ../_shared/citation-verification-workflow.md | Externally discovered references need existence, metadata, or claim-support verification before readiness |
| ../_shared/claim-strength.md | High-risk claim verbs need audit during validation |
| ../_shared/ai-assisted-writing-policy.md | Venue disclosure or author-verification status is part of readiness |
| ../_shared/output-mode.md | The user asks for a short validation result only |
Workflow
- State the validation goal being interpreted from the user request.
- Identify manuscript root and live draft.
- Read local instructions and relevant build files.
- Check structure anchors: thesis, contribution list, main results, ablation, limitations.
- Check story spine: Abstract and Conclusion claims must have Methods, Experiments, figure/table, and boundary anchors.
- Check figures, tables, captions, labels, and category/metric names. Check
that floats are first referenced in numeric order, that no
\labelis duplicated, and that every\refresolves to the intended float; wrong or out-of-order table references were flagged by real reviewers. - Run the smallest relevant build and consistency commands.
- If tools or files are unavailable, mark command-dependent checks
NOT_RUNand perform only the file-based or local-text audit that evidence allows. - For venue readiness, report whether official policy was checked, including
source URL and source date. If not checked, venue compliance is
NOT_RUNorPARTIAL. Static venue profiles count only asSTATIC_SUMMARY_NOT_LIVE_CHECK, not as official policy verification. - Report evidence, failures, and unverified items.
Default Output
Validation result
- Goal interpreted as:
- Build: PASS / FAIL / NOT_RUN / UNKNOWN
- References: PASS / FAIL / PARTIAL / NOT_RUN / UNKNOWN
- Figures/tables: PASS / FAIL / PARTIAL / NOT_RUN / UNKNOWN
- Claim-evidence audit: PASS / FAIL / PARTIAL / NOT_RUN / UNKNOWN
- Story-spine audit: PASS / FAIL / PARTIAL / NOT_RUN / UNKNOWN
- AI/disclosure check: PASS / FAIL / PARTIAL / NOT_RUN / UNKNOWN
- Venue readiness: PASS / FAIL / PARTIAL / NOT_RUN / UNKNOWN
- Private/stale wording scan: PASS / FAIL / NOT_RUN / UNKNOWN
- Overall readiness: READY / NOT_READY / CANNOT_DETERMINE
Evidence
- Commands run:
- Files inspected:
- Outputs observed:
- Failures:
- Not verified:
- Official policy checked:
- Official policy source/date:
- Official page opened this run:
- Policy excerpt checked:
- Profile-only status:
Blocking issues
- ...
Next actions
- ...Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

