brief-compliance-check
Skill150 starsChanged 12 days agoMITView on GitHub
Check a LaTeX coursework submission against the requirements in a supplied PDF assessment brief. Use when verifying format, required sections, word limits, or deliverables before submission. Not for general prose proofreading; use $proofread.
In this repository89 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- docs/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- beamer-deckSkill
- bib-coverageSkill
- bib-filterSkill
- bib-parseSkill
- camera-readySkill
- causal-designSkill
- checkpointSkill
- code-archaeologySkill
- compile-knowledgeSkill
- computational-experimentsSkill
- cross-language-checkSkill
- data-analysisSkill
- devils-advocateSkill
- docs-consistencySkill
- docxSkill
- experiment-designSkill
- grill-meSkill
- handoffSkill
- ideasSkill
- init-project-courseSkill
- init-project-lightSkill
- init-project-orchestrationSkill
- init-projectSkill
- insights-deckSkill
- interview-meSkill
- knowledge-lintSkill
- latex-diffSkill
- latex-health-checkSkill
- latex-polishSkill
- latex-postersSkill
- latex-scaffoldSkill
- latexSkill
- latex-templateSkill
- lean-checkSkill
- math-proofSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- method-auditSkill
- multi-perspectiveSkill
- numerical-checkSkill
- pdfSkill
- pipeline-manifestSkill
- playwright-cliSkill
- postmortemSkill
- pre-commit-auditSkill
- pre-submission-reportSkill
- project-deckSkill
- project-safetySkill
- proof-readabilitySkill
- proofreadSkill
- python-envSkill
- quarto-deckSkill
- reorgSkill
- replication-auditSkill
- replication-packageSkill
- retarget-journalSkill
- review-clusterSkill
- review-responseSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 23
Idempotency: if today's file exists, append a same-day descriptor ({date}-revision.md, {date}-r2.md, {date}-pre-submission.md) — never …
- Very specific: line 24
Index update: if reviews/INDEX.md exists, write a one-line entry under "Latest per source" pointing at the new file.
- Distinctive: line 48
Read the full brief PDF. Extract for each task/section:
- Distinctive: line 150
Never modify the submission to fix issues — report only
- Very specific: line 151
Never count words from lstlisting, tikzpicture, or table body content — these are not prose
- Distinctive: line 152
Never guess word limits — read them from the brief before counting
- Distinctive: line 153
Never report "approximately compliant" — every requirement is either met or not
- Distinctive: line 154
Never skip file existence checks — a missing deliverable is a hard gap
- Very specific: line 158
Write the brief-compliance report to reviews/<paper-slug>/brief-compliance-check/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md (where <paper-slug> is extracted from …
≈ “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
Brief Compliance Check
Given a PDF brief and a LaTeX submission, report exactly what is met, missing, or over-limit. Report-only — never modifies files.
Output Path
Per rules/review-artefact-routing.md (auto-loads in research projects (path-scoped to paper-*/ and paper/)):
- Source slug:
brief-compliance-check - Write reports to:
reviews/<paper-slug>/brief-compliance-check/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.mdinside the project, where<paper-slug>is the paper directory name (e.g.,paper-jtp,paper-philtech). Path is relative to the research project root, not the Task-Management repo. - Never at project root (
./CRITIC-REPORT.md-style filenames are forbidden — pre-rule layout). - Idempotency: if today's file exists, append a same-day descriptor (
{date}-revision.md,{date}-r2.md,{date}-pre-submission.md) — never overwrite. - Index update: if
reviews/INDEX.mdexists, write a one-line entry under "Latest per source" pointing at the new file. Otherwisereview-recapwill rebuild the index next time it runs. - Infrastructure repos (Task-Management, atlas-workspace, etc.): this section does not apply — the path-scoped rule won't load there.
When to Use
- "Do we meet the requirements of the brief?"
- "Check my submission before I submit"
- Any coursework or report with per-task deliverables and word limits
- Argument:
[brief.pdf] [submission/]or auto-detect from context
Defaults
| Setting | Default |
| Brief path | Prompt if not found automatically |
| Submission dir | CWD or submission/ subdirectory |
| LaTeX file | main.tex in submission dir |
| Word counting | Strips lstlisting, tikzpicture, tabular/tabularx, LaTeX commands |
Protocol
Step 1: Read the Brief
Read the full brief PDF. Extract for each task/section:
- Deliverables — what files or content must be present
- Word limits — any "maximum N words" constraints
- Required files — non-LaTeX files (YAML specs, workflow files, code, etc.)
- Total marks — note the rubric criteria for context
Present a one-paragraph summary: how many tasks, total marks, submission format.
Step 2: Check Word Counts
For any task with a word limit, count words in the corresponding LaTeX section using this script:
import re
with open('main.tex', 'r') as f:
tex = f.read()
# Map section headings to task labels and limits
# (fill from brief before running)
sections = {
'Task X': (r'\section{Heading}', r'\section{Next Heading}', limit),
}
for task, (start, end, limit) in sections.items():
s = tex.find(start)
e = tex.find(end) if end else len(tex)
chunk = tex[s:e]
# Strip non-prose environments
chunk = re.sub(r'\\begin\{lstlisting\}.*?\\end\{lstlisting\}', '', chunk, flags=re.DOTALL)
chunk = re.sub(r'\\begin\{tikzpicture\}.*?\\end\{tikzpicture\}', '', chunk, flags=re.DOTALL)
chunk = re.sub(r'\\begin\{tabular[x]?\}.*?\\end\{tabular[x]?\}', '', chunk, flags=re.DOTALL)
# Strip LaTeX commands but keep their text arguments
chunk = re.sub(r'\\[a-zA-Z]+\*?\{([^}]*)\}', r' \1 ', chunk)
chunk = re.sub(r'\\[a-zA-Z]+\*?', ' ', chunk)
chunk = re.sub(r'[{}\$~^%]', ' ', chunk)
count = len(chunk.split())
status = 'OK' if count <= limit else f'OVER by {count - limit}'
print(f'{task}: ~{count} words (limit {limit}) [{status}]')Adapt section headings and limits from the brief before running.
Step 3: Check File Deliverables
For each required non-LaTeX file, verify existence:
ls submission/ # check submitted PDF and LaTeX
ls openapi/ # check YAML specs if required
ls .github/workflows/ # check CI workflow if required
ls services/*/ # check service implementations if requiredReport each as ✅ present / ❌ missing.
Step 4: Report
Produce a compliance table per task. Then summarise overall status.
Output Format
## Brief Compliance Report — [Module/Assessment Name]
### Overview
[1-para summary: N tasks, N marks, submission format]
### Per-Task Compliance
| Task | Requirement | Status |
|------|-------------|--------|
| A | Architecture diagram | ✅ |
| A | Written explanation ≤600 words | ✅ ~540 words |
| B | Security requirements ≤800 words | ✅ ~416 words |
| C | Five OpenAPI YAML files | ✅ |
| C | Linting output in PDF | ✅ |
| D | Test logs | ✅ |
| D | Written analysis ≤600 words | ❌ ~764 words (OVER by 164) |
| E | GitHub Actions workflow file | ✅ |
| F | Reflection ≤700 words | ✅ ~645 words |
### File Deliverables
| File/Directory | Required | Status |
|----------------|----------|--------|
| main.pdf | Yes | ✅ |
| openapi/*.yaml (5 files) | Yes | ✅ |
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | Yes | ✅ |
| services/*/Dockerfile (5) | Yes | ✅ |
### Summary
- ✅ N requirements met
- ❌ N gaps or violations
- ⚠️ N warnings (approaching limit, optional items)
[Action items for any ❌ or ⚠️]Never Do These
- Never modify the submission to fix issues — report only
- Never count words from
lstlisting,tikzpicture, or table body content — these are not prose - Never guess word limits — read them from the brief before counting
- Never report "approximately compliant" — every requirement is either met or not
- Never skip file existence checks — a missing deliverable is a hard gap
Log to REVIEW-STATE.md (final step)
Write the brief-compliance report to reviews/<paper-slug>/brief-compliance-check/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md (where <paper-slug> is extracted from the paper directory, e.g. paper-jtp; create mkdir -p reviews/<paper-slug>/brief-compliance-check/ first). Then append a row to the project's REVIEW-STATE.md:
bash <skills-root>/_shared/review-state-log.sh \
--check brief-compliance-check \
--paper "<paper-{venue} dir>" \
--verdict "<PASS|PARTIAL|FAIL>" \
--score "<met-count>/<total-criteria>" \
--open-issues "<gap-count>/<total-criteria>" \
--report "reviews/<paper-slug>/brief-compliance-check/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md" \
--notes "<one-line: e.g. 'over word limit by 250; missing appendix C'>" \
[--trigger "pre-submission-report|review-cluster"]- Verdict: PASS if every criterion met; PARTIAL if some met; FAIL if any hard gap (missing deliverable, over hard word limit).
- Score: criteria met / total criteria (e.g.
8/10). - Open issues: total gaps at run time / total criteria.
- Trigger: pass orchestrator name only if invoked as a sub-agent. Otherwise omit.
Schema: the installed shared resource shared/review-state-schema.md.
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.

