agentleFS
Felpix-StudiosFelpix-Studios/social-science-research/skills/quality-gate/SKILL.md

quality-gate

Skill8 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Verify every quantitative claim in the paper traces to an analysis output file, and no important output was omitted. Use when checking the paper matches the analysis before submission.

42 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use deploy.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • VercelSkill

    deploy

    Deploy applications to Vercel. Use when the user says "deploy", "deploy to Vercel", "push to production", "deploy my app", or "go live".

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 34 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/rules/quality-gates.md before assigning the final verdict and severity.

    line 15
  2. Very specific:

    If $ARGUMENTS is provided, use that path.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    If multiple drafts found, use AskUserQuestion to let the user pick:

    line 25
  4. Distinctive:

    Read the full manuscript and extract every quantitative claim:

    line 33
  5. Distinctive:

    After the verifier completes, collect its results:

    line 80
  6. Distinctive:

    Report only — never edit: All fixes are the user's responsibility after reviewing the report.

    line 142

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 34 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Quality Gate: Paper ↔ Analysis Consistency

Cross-check every numerical claim in the paper against analysis output files. Reports only — never edits.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to the paper draft, or leave blank to auto-detect.

Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/rules/quality-gates.md before assigning the final verdict and severity.

Step 1: Locate the Paper Draft

If $ARGUMENTS is provided, use that path. Otherwise glob for:

  • manuscripts/**/*.tex
  • manuscripts/**/*.qmd
  • manuscripts/**/*.md

If multiple drafts found, use AskUserQuestion to let the user pick:

  • header: "Paper"
  • question: "Multiple drafts found. Which manuscript should I check?"
  • options: list up to 4 found files (label: filename, description: path and file size). If more than 4, group by directory.

Step 2: Extract Numerical Claims

Read the full manuscript and extract every quantitative claim:

  • Coefficients and standard errors — e.g., "The effect is 0.23 (SE = 0.04)"
  • Sample sizes — e.g., "N = 4,521 observations"
  • Percentages and proportions — e.g., "42% of firms..."
  • Means, medians, ranges — e.g., "average income of $45,000"
  • Table and figure references — e.g., "Table 2 shows...", "as seen in Figure 1"
  • p-values and significance statements — e.g., "statistically significant at the 1% level"

Record location (section, paragraph, line number if available) for each claim.

Step 3: Inventory Output Files

Glob for all output files:

  • output/tables/**/*.tex — regression and summary tables
  • output/tables/**/*.html — HTML versions
  • output/figures/**/*.pdf, output/figures/**/*.png — figures
  • output/**/*.rds, output/**/*.pkl, output/**/*.parquet, output/**/*.csv — saved objects

Build an inventory with file paths and sizes.

Step 4: Dispatch Verifier Agent

Dispatch the verifier agent via Task to perform the heavy verification work. Pass it:

  • The full list of numerical claims extracted in Step 2 (with locations)
  • The output file inventory from Step 3
  • The paper draft path
  • The bibliography file path
Task prompt: "You are the verifier agent. Paper draft: [path].
Bibliography: [bib path].

CLAIMS TO VERIFY:
[paste the full claims list from Step 2]

OUTPUT FILE INVENTORY:
[paste the inventory from Step 3]

Verify each claim against the output files. Then do a reverse check —
find output files NOT referenced in the paper. Then check all citation
keys against the bibliography. Follow the verifier agent instructions
and return your full verification report."

After the verifier completes, collect its results:

  • Claim verification table (MATCHED / UNVERIFIED / MISSING FILE per claim)
  • Unreferenced output files list
  • Missing citation keys

Step 5: Save Report

Save to quality_reports/quality_gate_[YYYY-MM-DD]_[paper-name].md:

# Quality Gate Report: [Paper Name]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Paper:** [file path]

## Verdict: PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL

PASS = all claims matched, no missing citations, no unexplained unreferenced outputs
CONDITIONAL PASS = minor unverified claims or informational unreferenced outputs
FAIL = unverified critical claims or missing citations


## Claim Verification

| Claim | Location | Found in Output? | Source File | Status |
|-------|----------|-----------------|-------------|--------|
| β = 0.23 (SE = 0.04) | Section 4, para 2 | Yes | output/tables/main_regs.tex | MATCHED |
| N = 4,521 | Table 2 note | Yes | output/tables/main_regs.tex | MATCHED |
| 42% of firms | Intro, para 1 | No | — | UNVERIFIED |


## Unreferenced Outputs

Files in output/ not referenced in the paper:

| File | Size | Recommended Action |
|------|------|-------------------|
| output/tables/robustness_het.tex | 4.2 KB | Reference in Section 7 or explain exclusion |


## Missing Citations

| Key | Used At | Status |
|-----|---------|--------|
| SmithJones2021 | Section 3, para 1 | NOT IN BIBLIOGRAPHY — CRITICAL |


## Summary

- Claims verified: N / M total
- Claims unverified: K (see table above)
- Unreferenced outputs: J
- Missing citations: L

## Recommended Actions (Priority Order)
1. [BLOCKING] ...
2. [RECOMMENDED] ...

Key Rules

  • Report only — never edit. All fixes are the user's responsibility after reviewing the report.
  • Tolerance: For inline numbers, a claim is MATCHED if the value appears in any output file within reasonable display rounding (±0.005 for 2-decimal numbers).
  • False positives are OK. Flag uncertainties as UNVERIFIED rather than guessing MATCHED.
  • Missing files are always BLOCKING — a figure reference pointing to a non-existent file is a FAIL.

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.