agentleFS
flonatflonat/flonat-research/skills/brief-compliance-check/SKILL.md

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.

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
  1. Very specific:

    Idempotency: if today's file exists, append a same-day descriptor ({date}-revision.md, {date}-r2.md, {date}-pre-submission.md) — never …

    line 23
  2. Very specific:

    Index update: if reviews/INDEX.md exists, write a one-line entry under "Latest per source" pointing at the new file.

    line 24
  3. Distinctive:

    Read the full brief PDF. Extract for each task/section:

    line 48
  4. Distinctive:

    Never modify the submission to fix issues — report only

    line 150
  5. Very specific:

    Never count words from lstlisting, tikzpicture, or table body content — these are not prose

    line 151
  6. Distinctive:

    Never guess word limits — read them from the brief before counting

    line 152
  7. Distinctive:

    Never report "approximately compliant" — every requirement is either met or not

    line 153
  8. Distinctive:

    Never skip file existence checks — a missing deliverable is a hard gap

    line 154
  9. Very specific:

    Write the brief-compliance report to reviews/<paper-slug>/brief-compliance-check/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md (where <paper-slug> is extracted from …

    line 158

≈ “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

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>.md inside 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.md exists, write a one-line entry under "Latest per source" pointing at the new file. Otherwise review-recap will 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

SettingDefault
Brief pathPrompt if not found automatically
Submission dirCWD or submission/ subdirectory
LaTeX filemain.tex in submission dir
Word countingStrips 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 required

Report 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.

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.