coauthor-engine
Skill18 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Activate when the user needs to manage multi-author collaboration on a paper. Tracks author contributions using the CRediT taxonomy, manages responsibility assignments, documents the human-AI division of labor, and produces an author contribution statement ready for submission.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- audit-engineSkill
- figure-engineSkill
- idea-engineSkill
- latex-engineSkill
- literature-engineSkill
- method-engineSkill
- peer-review-engineSkill
- positioning-engineSkill
- presentation-engineSkill
- qualitative-engineSkill
- review-engineSkill
- screening-engineSkill
- submission-engineSkill
- theory-engineSkill
- verification-engineSkill
- writing-engineSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 32
Before submission (submission-engine may trigger this)
- Distinctive: line 33
When documenting AI involvement in the research process
- Distinctive: line 55
Note: If AI is listed, typically in acknowledgments, not as author (venue-dependent)
≈ “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
Orchestration Log: When this skill is activated, append a log entry to
outputs/orchestration_log.md:### Skill Activation: Co-Author Engine **Timestamp:** [current date/time] **Actor:** AI Agent (coauthor-engine) **Input:** [N] authors, task: [contribution tracking / responsibility assignment / CRediT statement] **Output:** author_contributions.md saved
Co-Author Engine
Core Principle
Modern academic publishing increasingly requires transparent documentation of who did what. The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system standardizes this. For AI-assisted papers, documenting the human-AI division of labor is not optional — it's becoming a requirement at major venues.
When to Activate
- User says "author contributions", "CRediT statement", "who did what"
- User says "add co-author", "assign responsibilities", "contribution tracking"
- Before submission (submission-engine may trigger this)
- When documenting AI involvement in the research process
Step 1: DEFINE Author Roster
Author Information Template
## Authors
| # | Name | Affiliation | Role | ORCID | Corresponding |
|---|------|-------------|------|-------|--------------|
| 1 | [Name] | [University/Org] | [Senior/Junior/PI] | [ORCID] | [Yes/No] |
| 2 | [Name] | [University/Org] | [Senior/Junior] | [ORCID] | [No] |
| 3 | AI Agent (Claude) | Anthropic | AI Assistant | N/A | No |Author Order Conventions
- IS/Business conventions: First author did most work, last author is senior/PI
- CS conventions: First author did most work, alphabetical otherwise or by contribution
- Note: If AI is listed, typically in acknowledgments, not as author (venue-dependent)
Step 2: ASSIGN CRediT Roles
CRediT Taxonomy (14 Roles)
For each author (including AI), indicate contribution level:
| # | CRediT Role | Definition | Author 1 | Author 2 | AI Agent |
| 1 | Conceptualization | Ideas, formulation of research goals | Lead | Supporting | — |
| 2 | Data curation | Managing, annotating, maintaining data | Lead | — | Supporting |
| 3 | Formal analysis | Statistical, mathematical, computational analysis | Supporting | — | Lead |
| 4 | Funding acquisition | Obtaining financial support | — | Lead | — |
| 5 | Investigation | Conducting the research, data collection | Lead | Supporting | Supporting |
| 6 | Methodology | Development or design of methodology | Lead | Supporting | Supporting |
| 7 | Project administration | Managing and coordinating the project | Lead | — | — |
| 8 | Resources | Provision of study materials, tools, computing | — | Lead | — |
| 9 | Software | Programming, implementation, code | — | — | Lead |
| 10 | Supervision | Oversight and leadership responsibility | — | Lead | — |
| 11 | Validation | Verification and replication of results | Lead | Supporting | Supporting |
| 12 | Visualization | Creating figures, diagrams, plots | Supporting | — | Lead |
| 13 | Writing — original draft | Creating the initial manuscript | Supporting | — | Lead |
| 14 | Writing — review & editing | Critical review, commentary, revision | Lead | Lead | Supporting |
Levels: Lead / Supporting / — (not involved)
AI-Specific Contribution Documentation
For the AI agent, document specifically:
## AI Contribution Statement
This paper was produced with the assistance of an AI writing system (Claude,
via the Open Academic Paper Machine). The AI system contributed to:
- **Literature search and synthesis:** Automated multi-database search, deduplication,
and initial thematic clustering of [N] papers
- **First draft generation:** Initial drafts of all sections following academic
writing templates, subsequently revised by human authors
- **Figure generation:** [N] figures generated via AI (PaperBanana)
- **Citation verification:** Automated verification of [N] citations against source abstracts
- **LaTeX compilation:** Automated conversion and PDF generation
**Human oversight and quality control:**
- All research questions, theoretical framing, and methodological decisions were
made by human authors
- All AI-generated text was reviewed, revised, and approved by human authors
- Empirical data collection and analysis were conducted by human authors
- Final manuscript was reviewed and approved by all human co-authors
**AI disclosure:** [Statement per venue requirements, e.g., "In accordance with
[Venue]'s AI policy, we disclose that AI tools were used in the preparation of
this manuscript as described above. All authors take full responsibility for the
content."]Step 3: TRACK Responsibilities
Task Assignment Matrix
For ongoing collaboration, track who is responsible for what:
## Task Assignment
| Task | Responsible | Deadline | Status |
|------|------------|----------|--------|
| Finalize RQs | Author 1 | [date] | Done |
| Data collection | Author 1 | [date] | In progress |
| Method section review | Author 2 | [date] | Pending |
| Figure 3 redesign | AI Agent | [date] | Done |
| Discussion revision | Author 1 + Author 2 | [date] | Pending |
| Final proofread | Author 2 | [date] | Pending |
| Cover letter | Author 1 | [date] | Pending |
| Submission | Author 1 (corresponding) | [date] | Pending |Step 4: GENERATE Output
Author Contribution Statement (for manuscript)
Generate venue-appropriate contribution statement:
CRediT format (most journals):
Author Contributions: [Author 1]: Conceptualization (lead), Investigation (lead),
Methodology (lead), Project administration (lead), Validation (lead), Writing —
review & editing (lead). [Author 2]: Conceptualization (supporting), Funding
acquisition (lead), Resources (lead), Supervision (lead), Writing — review &
editing (lead).Prose format (some journals):
[Author 1] conceived the study, conducted the literature review, designed the
methodology, and wrote the initial manuscript. [Author 2] supervised the project,
provided critical feedback on theoretical framing, and co-edited the final
manuscript. Both authors approved the final version.Save
| File | Content |
author_contributions.md | Full CRediT matrix + AI statement + task tracker |
Add to paper.tex | CRediT statement in Author Contributions section |
Add to submission/ | AI disclosure statement for venue requirements |
Integration
| Scenario | Integration |
| Submission-engine | Provides author contribution statement for submission |
| Orchestration log | Complements the AI audit trail |
| Review-engine | Tracks who addresses which reviewer comment |
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.

