agentleFS
169884902hzl169884902hzl/engineering-paper-skills/skills/engineering-validation/SKILL.md

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.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill before saying a paper edit is complete, fixed, or ready.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    No verification, no completion claim.

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Treat evidence anchors, citations, figures, tables, and PDF output as part of manuscript correctness.

    line 15
  4. Distinctive:

    Use this skill for readiness checks, not for drafting new manuscript prose.

    line 25
  5. Very specific:

    Use engineering-writing when the user needs new section structure or claim-evidence planning before validation.

    line 26
  6. Very specific:

    Use engineering-polishing for prose-only improvements.

    line 28
  7. Very specific:

    Use engineering-figure-table for visual design before final consistency checks.

    line 29
  8. Very specific:

    Use engineering-response for reviewer/advisor reply drafting before final response package validation.

    line 31
  9. Distinctive:

    Read local instructions and relevant build files.

    line 102
  10. Distinctive:

    Check structure anchors: thesis, contribution list, main results, ablation, limitations.

    line 103
  11. Distinctive:

    Check story spine: Abstract and Conclusion claims must have Methods, Experiments, figure/table, and boundary anchors.

    line 105
  12. Very specific:

    Check figures, tables, captions, labels, and category/metric names.

    line 107
  13. Distinctive:

    Run the smallest relevant build and consistency commands.

    line 111
  14. Very specific:

    If tools or files are unavailable, mark command-dependent checks NOT_RUN and perform only the file-based or local-text audit that evidence …

    line 112

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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-writing when the user needs new section structure or claim-evidence planning before validation.
  • Use engineering-polishing for prose-only improvements.
  • Use engineering-figure-table for visual design before final consistency checks.
  • Use engineering-response for 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 \label keys, 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 .aux file 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

FileOpen when
references/live-draft-check.mdConfirming source draft, input order, title, author/blind state, or final sync
references/latex-build.mdCompiling LaTeX, checking bibitem count, page count, warnings, or diff checks
references/evidence-audit.mdChecking contributions, claims, section anchors, citations, and overclaims
references/final-readonly-check.mdRunning the final 30-minute style read-only inspection
references/error-archive.mdDiagnosing common manuscript failure symptoms and the first section to inspect
references/submission-checklist.mdFinal read-only inspection before submission
references/venue-checklist.mdVenue family changes limits, reproducibility, checklist, or AI-disclosure requirements
references/citation-metadata-check.mdCitation existence, DOI, venue, year, or BibTeX consistency needs verification
references/ai-disclosure-check.mdAI-assisted writing, citation, or figure generation may require author verification or disclosure
references/examples.mdNeeding concrete validation report examples
references/failure-modes.mdHandling requests to certify readiness without running checks
../_shared/story-spine.mdChecking whether Abstract/Conclusion claims match Methods/Experiments evidence
../_shared/evidence-boundary.mdValidation touches claims, citations, results, or completion status
../_shared/citation-boundary.mdCitation existence, citation placement, or reference claims are part of the check
../_shared/citation-verification-workflow.mdExternally discovered references need existence, metadata, or claim-support verification before readiness
../_shared/claim-strength.mdHigh-risk claim verbs need audit during validation
../_shared/ai-assisted-writing-policy.mdVenue disclosure or author-verification status is part of readiness
../_shared/output-mode.mdThe user asks for a short validation result only

Workflow

  1. State the validation goal being interpreted from the user request.
  2. Identify manuscript root and live draft.
  3. Read local instructions and relevant build files.
  4. Check structure anchors: thesis, contribution list, main results, ablation, limitations.
  5. Check story spine: Abstract and Conclusion claims must have Methods, Experiments, figure/table, and boundary anchors.
  6. Check figures, tables, captions, labels, and category/metric names. Check that floats are first referenced in numeric order, that no \label is duplicated, and that every \ref resolves to the intended float; wrong or out-of-order table references were flagged by real reviewers.
  7. Run the smallest relevant build and consistency commands.
  8. If tools or files are unavailable, mark command-dependent checks NOT_RUN and perform only the file-based or local-text audit that evidence allows.
  9. For venue readiness, report whether official policy was checked, including source URL and source date. If not checked, venue compliance is NOT_RUN or PARTIAL. Static venue profiles count only as STATIC_SUMMARY_NOT_LIVE_CHECK, not as official policy verification.
  10. 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
- ...

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.