@bohuyeshan/openagent-labforge-core 3.11.5 → 3.13.0

package/generated/skills-bundles/full/skills/research/literature-and-web-search/auto-claude__research-lit/SKILL.md

@@ -6,189 +6,190 @@ allowed-tools: "Bash(*), Read, Glob, Grep, WebSearch, WebFetch, Write, Agent, mc
 metadata:
   category: "research/literature-and-web-search"
 ---
-# Research Literature Review
-
-Research topic: $ARGUMENTS
-
-## Constants
-
-- **PAPER_LIBRARY** — Local directory containing user's paper collection (PDFs). Check these paths in order:
-  1. `papers/` in the current project directory
-  2. `literature/` in the current project directory
-  3. Custom path specified by user in `CLAUDE.md` under `## Paper Library`
-- **MAX_LOCAL_PAPERS = 20** — Maximum number of local PDFs to scan (read first 3 pages each). If more are found, prioritize by filename relevance to the topic.
-- **ARXIV_DOWNLOAD = false** — When `true`, download top 3-5 most relevant arXiv PDFs to PAPER_LIBRARY after search. When `false` (default), only fetch metadata (title, abstract, authors) via arXiv API — no files are downloaded.
-- **ARXIV_MAX_DOWNLOAD = 5** — Maximum number of PDFs to download when `ARXIV_DOWNLOAD = true`.
-
-> 💡 Overrides:
-> - `/research-lit "topic" — paper library: ~/my_papers/` — custom local PDF path
-> - `/research-lit "topic" — sources: zotero, local` — only search Zotero + local PDFs
-> - `/research-lit "topic" — sources: zotero` — only search Zotero
-> - `/research-lit "topic" — sources: web` — only search the web (skip all local)
-> - `/research-lit "topic" — arxiv download: true` — download top relevant arXiv PDFs
-> - `/research-lit "topic" — arxiv download: true, max download: 10` — download up to 10 PDFs
-
-## Data Sources
-
-This skill checks multiple sources **in priority order**. All are optional — if a source is not configured or not requested, skip it silently.
-
-### Source Selection
-
-Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for a `— sources:` directive:
-- **If `— sources:` is specified**: Only search the listed sources (comma-separated). Valid values: `zotero`, `obsidian`, `local`, `web`, `all`.
-- **If not specified**: Default to `all` — search every available source in priority order.
-
-Examples:
-```
-/research-lit "diffusion models"                        → all (default)
-/research-lit "diffusion models" — sources: all         → all
-/research-lit "diffusion models" — sources: zotero      → Zotero only
-/research-lit "diffusion models" — sources: zotero, web → Zotero + web
-/research-lit "diffusion models" — sources: local       → local PDFs only
-/research-lit "topic" — sources: obsidian, local, web   → skip Zotero
-```
-
-### Source Table
-
-| Priority | Source | ID | How to detect | What it provides |
-|----------|--------|----|---------------|-----------------|
-| 1 | **Zotero** (via MCP) | `zotero` | Try calling any `mcp__zotero__*` tool — if unavailable, skip | Collections, tags, annotations, PDF highlights, BibTeX, semantic search |
-| 2 | **Obsidian** (via MCP) | `obsidian` | Try calling any `mcp__obsidian-vault__*` tool — if unavailable, skip | Research notes, paper summaries, tagged references, wikilinks |
-| 3 | **Local PDFs** | `local` | `Glob: papers/**/*.pdf, literature/**/*.pdf` | Raw PDF content (first 3 pages) |
-| 4 | **Web search** | `web` | Always available (WebSearch) | arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar |
-
-> **Graceful degradation**: If no MCP servers are configured, the skill works exactly as before (local PDFs + web search). Zotero and Obsidian are pure additions.
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Step 0a: Search Zotero Library (if available)
-
-**Skip this step entirely if Zotero MCP is not configured.**
-
-Try calling a Zotero MCP tool (e.g., search). If it succeeds:
-
-1. **Search by topic**: Use the Zotero search tool to find papers matching the research topic
-2. **Read collections**: Check if the user has a relevant collection/folder for this topic
-3. **Extract annotations**: For highly relevant papers, pull PDF highlights and notes — these represent what the user found important
-4. **Export BibTeX**: Get citation data for relevant papers (useful for `/paper-write` later)
-5. **Compile results**: For each relevant Zotero entry, extract:
-   - Title, authors, year, venue
-   - User's annotations/highlights (if any)
-   - Tags the user assigned
-   - Which collection it belongs to
-
-> 📚 Zotero annotations are gold — they show what the user personally highlighted as important, which is far more valuable than generic summaries.
-
-### Step 0b: Search Obsidian Vault (if available)
-
-**Skip this step entirely if Obsidian MCP is not configured.**
-
-Try calling an Obsidian MCP tool (e.g., search). If it succeeds:
-
-1. **Search vault**: Search for notes related to the research topic
-2. **Check tags**: Look for notes tagged with relevant topics (e.g., `#diffusion-models`, `#paper-review`)
-3. **Read research notes**: For relevant notes, extract the user's own summaries and insights
-4. **Follow links**: If notes link to other relevant notes (wikilinks), follow them for additional context
-5. **Compile results**: For each relevant note:
-   - Note title and path
-   - User's summary/insights
-   - Links to other notes (research graph)
-   - Any frontmatter metadata (paper URL, status, rating)
-
-> 📝 Obsidian notes represent the user's **processed understanding** — more valuable than raw paper content for understanding their perspective.
-
-### Step 0c: Scan Local Paper Library
-
-Before searching online, check if the user already has relevant papers locally:
-
-1. **Locate library**: Check PAPER_LIBRARY paths for PDF files
-   ```
-   Glob: papers/**/*.pdf, literature/**/*.pdf
-   ```
-
-2. **De-duplicate against Zotero**: If Step 0a found papers, skip any local PDFs already covered by Zotero results (match by filename or title).
-
-3. **Filter by relevance**: Match filenames and first-page content against the research topic. Skip clearly unrelated papers.
-
-4. **Summarize relevant papers**: For each relevant local PDF (up to MAX_LOCAL_PAPERS):
-   - Read first 3 pages (title, abstract, intro)
-   - Extract: title, authors, year, core contribution, relevance to topic
-   - Flag papers that are directly related vs tangentially related
-
-5. **Build local knowledge base**: Compile summaries into a "papers you already have" section. This becomes the starting point — external search fills the gaps.
-
-> 📚 If no local papers are found, skip to Step 1. If the user has a comprehensive local collection, the external search can be more targeted (focus on what's missing).
-
-### Step 1: Search (external)
-- Use WebSearch to find recent papers on the topic
-- Check arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar
-- Focus on papers from last 2 years unless studying foundational work
-- **De-duplicate**: Skip papers already found in Zotero, Obsidian, or local library
-
-**arXiv API search** (always runs, no download by default):
-
-Locate the fetch script and search arXiv directly:
-```bash
-# Try to find arxiv_fetch.py
-SCRIPT=$(find tools/ -name "arxiv_fetch.py" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
-# If not found, check ARIS install
-[ -z "$SCRIPT" ] && SCRIPT=$(find ~/.claude/skills/arxiv/ -name "arxiv_fetch.py" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
-
-# Search arXiv API for structured results (title, abstract, authors, categories)
-python3 "$SCRIPT" search "QUERY" --max 10
-```
-
-If `arxiv_fetch.py` is not found, fall back to WebSearch for arXiv (same as before).
-
-The arXiv API returns structured metadata (title, abstract, full author list, categories, dates) — richer than WebSearch snippets. Merge these results with WebSearch findings and de-duplicate.
-
-**Optional PDF download** (only when `ARXIV_DOWNLOAD = true`):
-
-After all sources are searched and papers are ranked by relevance:
-```bash
-# Download top N most relevant arXiv papers
-python3 "$SCRIPT" download ARXIV_ID --dir papers/
-```
-- Only download papers ranked in the top ARXIV_MAX_DOWNLOAD by relevance
-- Skip papers already in the local library
-- 1-second delay between downloads (rate limiting)
-- Verify each PDF > 10 KB
-
-### Step 2: Analyze Each Paper
-For each relevant paper (from all sources), extract:
-- **Problem**: What gap does it address?
-- **Method**: Core technical contribution (1-2 sentences)
-- **Results**: Key numbers/claims
-- **Relevance**: How does it relate to our work?
-- **Source**: Where we found it (Zotero/Obsidian/local/web) — helps user know what they already have vs what's new
-
-### Step 3: Synthesize
-- Group papers by approach/theme
-- Identify consensus vs disagreements in the field
-- Find gaps that our work could fill
-- If Obsidian notes exist, incorporate the user's own insights into the synthesis
-
-### Step 4: Output
-Present as a structured literature table:
-
-```
-| Paper | Venue | Method | Key Result | Relevance to Us | Source |
-|-------|-------|--------|------------|-----------------|--------|
-```
-
-Plus a narrative summary of the landscape (3-5 paragraphs).
-
-If Zotero BibTeX was exported, include a `references.bib` snippet for direct use in paper writing.
-
-### Step 5: Save (if requested)
-- Save paper PDFs to `literature/` or `papers/`
-- Update related work notes in project memory
-- If Obsidian is available, optionally create a literature review note in the vault
-
-## Key Rules
-- Always include paper citations (authors, year, venue)
-- Distinguish between peer-reviewed and preprints
-- Be honest about limitations of each paper
-- Note if a paper directly competes with or supports our approach
-- **Never fail because a MCP server is not configured** — always fall back gracefully to the next data source
-- Zotero/Obsidian tools may have different names depending on how the user configured the MCP server (e.g., `mcp__zotero__search` or `mcp__zotero-mcp__search_items`). Try the most common patterns and adapt.
+
+# Research Literature Review
+
+Research topic: $ARGUMENTS
+
+## Constants
+
+- **PAPER_LIBRARY** — Local directory containing user's paper collection (PDFs). Check these paths in order:
+  1. `papers/` in the current project directory
+  2. `literature/` in the current project directory
+  3. Custom path specified by user in `CLAUDE.md` under `## Paper Library`
+- **MAX_LOCAL_PAPERS = 20** — Maximum number of local PDFs to scan (read first 3 pages each). If more are found, prioritize by filename relevance to the topic.
+- **ARXIV_DOWNLOAD = false** — When `true`, download top 3-5 most relevant arXiv PDFs to PAPER_LIBRARY after search. When `false` (default), only fetch metadata (title, abstract, authors) via arXiv API — no files are downloaded.
+- **ARXIV_MAX_DOWNLOAD = 5** — Maximum number of PDFs to download when `ARXIV_DOWNLOAD = true`.
+
+> 💡 Overrides:
+> - `/research-lit "topic" — paper library: ~/my_papers/` — custom local PDF path
+> - `/research-lit "topic" — sources: zotero, local` — only search Zotero + local PDFs
+> - `/research-lit "topic" — sources: zotero` — only search Zotero
+> - `/research-lit "topic" — sources: web` — only search the web (skip all local)
+> - `/research-lit "topic" — arxiv download: true` — download top relevant arXiv PDFs
+> - `/research-lit "topic" — arxiv download: true, max download: 10` — download up to 10 PDFs
+
+## Data Sources
+
+This skill checks multiple sources **in priority order**. All are optional — if a source is not configured or not requested, skip it silently.
+
+### Source Selection
+
+Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for a `— sources:` directive:
+- **If `— sources:` is specified**: Only search the listed sources (comma-separated). Valid values: `zotero`, `obsidian`, `local`, `web`, `all`.
+- **If not specified**: Default to `all` — search every available source in priority order.
+
+Examples:
+```
+/research-lit "diffusion models"                        → all (default)
+/research-lit "diffusion models" — sources: all         → all
+/research-lit "diffusion models" — sources: zotero      → Zotero only
+/research-lit "diffusion models" — sources: zotero, web → Zotero + web
+/research-lit "diffusion models" — sources: local       → local PDFs only
+/research-lit "topic" — sources: obsidian, local, web   → skip Zotero
+```
+
+### Source Table
+
+| Priority | Source | ID | How to detect | What it provides |
+|----------|--------|----|---------------|-----------------|
+| 1 | **Zotero** (via MCP) | `zotero` | Try calling any `mcp__zotero__*` tool — if unavailable, skip | Collections, tags, annotations, PDF highlights, BibTeX, semantic search |
+| 2 | **Obsidian** (via MCP) | `obsidian` | Try calling any `mcp__obsidian-vault__*` tool — if unavailable, skip | Research notes, paper summaries, tagged references, wikilinks |
+| 3 | **Local PDFs** | `local` | `Glob: papers/**/*.pdf, literature/**/*.pdf` | Raw PDF content (first 3 pages) |
+| 4 | **Web search** | `web` | Always available (WebSearch) | arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar |
+
+> **Graceful degradation**: If no MCP servers are configured, the skill works exactly as before (local PDFs + web search). Zotero and Obsidian are pure additions.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Step 0a: Search Zotero Library (if available)
+
+**Skip this step entirely if Zotero MCP is not configured.**
+
+Try calling a Zotero MCP tool (e.g., search). If it succeeds:
+
+1. **Search by topic**: Use the Zotero search tool to find papers matching the research topic
+2. **Read collections**: Check if the user has a relevant collection/folder for this topic
+3. **Extract annotations**: For highly relevant papers, pull PDF highlights and notes — these represent what the user found important
+4. **Export BibTeX**: Get citation data for relevant papers (useful for `/paper-write` later)
+5. **Compile results**: For each relevant Zotero entry, extract:
+   - Title, authors, year, venue
+   - User's annotations/highlights (if any)
+   - Tags the user assigned
+   - Which collection it belongs to
+
+> 📚 Zotero annotations are gold — they show what the user personally highlighted as important, which is far more valuable than generic summaries.
+
+### Step 0b: Search Obsidian Vault (if available)
+
+**Skip this step entirely if Obsidian MCP is not configured.**
+
+Try calling an Obsidian MCP tool (e.g., search). If it succeeds:
+
+1. **Search vault**: Search for notes related to the research topic
+2. **Check tags**: Look for notes tagged with relevant topics (e.g., `#diffusion-models`, `#paper-review`)
+3. **Read research notes**: For relevant notes, extract the user's own summaries and insights
+4. **Follow links**: If notes link to other relevant notes (wikilinks), follow them for additional context
+5. **Compile results**: For each relevant note:
+   - Note title and path
+   - User's summary/insights
+   - Links to other notes (research graph)
+   - Any frontmatter metadata (paper URL, status, rating)
+
+> 📝 Obsidian notes represent the user's **processed understanding** — more valuable than raw paper content for understanding their perspective.
+
+### Step 0c: Scan Local Paper Library
+
+Before searching online, check if the user already has relevant papers locally:
+
+1. **Locate library**: Check PAPER_LIBRARY paths for PDF files
+   ```
+   Glob: papers/**/*.pdf, literature/**/*.pdf
+   ```
+
+2. **De-duplicate against Zotero**: If Step 0a found papers, skip any local PDFs already covered by Zotero results (match by filename or title).
+
+3. **Filter by relevance**: Match filenames and first-page content against the research topic. Skip clearly unrelated papers.
+
+4. **Summarize relevant papers**: For each relevant local PDF (up to MAX_LOCAL_PAPERS):
+   - Read first 3 pages (title, abstract, intro)
+   - Extract: title, authors, year, core contribution, relevance to topic
+   - Flag papers that are directly related vs tangentially related
+
+5. **Build local knowledge base**: Compile summaries into a "papers you already have" section. This becomes the starting point — external search fills the gaps.
+
+> 📚 If no local papers are found, skip to Step 1. If the user has a comprehensive local collection, the external search can be more targeted (focus on what's missing).
+
+### Step 1: Search (external)
+- Use WebSearch to find recent papers on the topic
+- Check arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar
+- Focus on papers from last 2 years unless studying foundational work
+- **De-duplicate**: Skip papers already found in Zotero, Obsidian, or local library
+
+**arXiv API search** (always runs, no download by default):
+
+Locate the fetch script and search arXiv directly:
+```bash
+# Try to find arxiv_fetch.py
+SCRIPT=$(find tools/ -name "arxiv_fetch.py" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+# If not found, check ARIS install
+[ -z "$SCRIPT" ] && SCRIPT=$(find ~/.claude/skills/arxiv/ -name "arxiv_fetch.py" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+
+# Search arXiv API for structured results (title, abstract, authors, categories)
+python3 "$SCRIPT" search "QUERY" --max 10
+```
+
+If `arxiv_fetch.py` is not found, fall back to WebSearch for arXiv (same as before).
+
+The arXiv API returns structured metadata (title, abstract, full author list, categories, dates) — richer than WebSearch snippets. Merge these results with WebSearch findings and de-duplicate.
+
+**Optional PDF download** (only when `ARXIV_DOWNLOAD = true`):
+
+After all sources are searched and papers are ranked by relevance:
+```bash
+# Download top N most relevant arXiv papers
+python3 "$SCRIPT" download ARXIV_ID --dir papers/
+```
+- Only download papers ranked in the top ARXIV_MAX_DOWNLOAD by relevance
+- Skip papers already in the local library
+- 1-second delay between downloads (rate limiting)
+- Verify each PDF > 10 KB
+
+### Step 2: Analyze Each Paper
+For each relevant paper (from all sources), extract:
+- **Problem**: What gap does it address?
+- **Method**: Core technical contribution (1-2 sentences)
+- **Results**: Key numbers/claims
+- **Relevance**: How does it relate to our work?
+- **Source**: Where we found it (Zotero/Obsidian/local/web) — helps user know what they already have vs what's new
+
+### Step 3: Synthesize
+- Group papers by approach/theme
+- Identify consensus vs disagreements in the field
+- Find gaps that our work could fill
+- If Obsidian notes exist, incorporate the user's own insights into the synthesis
+
+### Step 4: Output
+Present as a structured literature table:
+
+```
+| Paper | Venue | Method | Key Result | Relevance to Us | Source |
+|-------|-------|--------|------------|-----------------|--------|
+```
+
+Plus a narrative summary of the landscape (3-5 paragraphs).
+
+If Zotero BibTeX was exported, include a `references.bib` snippet for direct use in paper writing.
+
+### Step 5: Save (if requested)
+- Save paper PDFs to `literature/` or `papers/`
+- Update related work notes in project memory
+- If Obsidian is available, optionally create a literature review note in the vault
+
+## Key Rules
+- Always include paper citations (authors, year, venue)
+- Distinguish between peer-reviewed and preprints
+- Be honest about limitations of each paper
+- Note if a paper directly competes with or supports our approach
+- **Never fail because a MCP server is not configured** — always fall back gracefully to the next data source
+- Zotero/Obsidian tools may have different names depending on how the user configured the MCP server (e.g., `mcp__zotero__search` or `mcp__zotero-mcp__search_items`). Try the most common patterns and adapt.

package/generated/skills-bundles/full/skills/research/research-ideation/auto-claude__idea-creator/SKILL.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Generate publishable research ideas for: $ARGUMENTS
 
 ## Overview
 
-Given a broad research direction from the user, systematically generate, validate, and rank concrete research ideas. This skill composes with `/research-lit` and `/novelty-check` to form a complete idea discovery pipeline.
+Given a broad research direction from the user, systematically generate, validate, and rank concrete research ideas. This skill composes with `/research-lit` and `/novelty-check` to form a complete idea discovery pipeline.
 
 ## Constants
 
@@ -108,17 +108,17 @@ For each generated idea, quickly evaluate:
 
 Eliminate ideas that fail any of these. Typically 8-12 ideas reduce to 4-6.
 
-### Phase 4: Deep Validation (for top ideas)
+### Phase 4: Deep Validation (for top ideas)
 
 For each surviving idea, run a deeper evaluation:
 
 1. **Novelty check**: Use the `/novelty-check` workflow (multi-source search + GPT-5.4 cross-verification) for each idea
 
-2. **Critical review**: Perform a rigorous internal devil's-advocate pass:
-   - What's the strongest objection a reviewer would raise?
-   - What's the most likely failure mode?
-   - How would you rank these for a top venue submission?
-   - Which 2-3 would you actually work on?
+2. **Critical review**: Perform a rigorous internal devil's-advocate pass:
+   - What's the strongest objection a reviewer would raise?
+   - What's the most likely failure mode?
+   - How would you rank these for a top venue submission?
+   - Which 2-3 would you actually work on?
 
 3. **Combine rankings**: Merge your assessment with GPT-5.4's ranking. Select top 2-3 ideas for pilot experiments.
 
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ After this skill produces the ranked report:
 ```
 /idea-creator "direction"     → ranked ideas
 /novelty-check "top idea"     → deep novelty verification (already done in Phase 4, but user can re-run)
-implement                     → write code
-/run-experiment               → deploy to GPU
-/ulw-loop             → iterate until submission-ready
-```
+implement                     → write code
+/run-experiment               → deploy to GPU
+/ulw-loop             → iterate until submission-ready
+```

package/generated/skills-bundles/full/skills/research/research-ideation/auto-claude__idea-discovery/SKILL.md

@@ -13,12 +13,12 @@ Orchestrate a complete idea discovery workflow for: **$ARGUMENTS**
 
 ## Overview
 
-This skill chains three sub-skills into a single automated pipeline:
-
-```
-/research-lit → /idea-creator → /novelty-check
-  (survey)      (brainstorm)    (verify novel)
-```
+This skill chains three sub-skills into a single automated pipeline:
+
+```
+/research-lit → /idea-creator → /novelty-check
+  (survey)      (brainstorm)    (verify novel)
+```
 
 Each phase builds on the previous one's output. The final deliverable is a validated `IDEA_REPORT.md` with ranked ideas, pilot results, and a suggested execution plan.
 
@@ -113,15 +113,15 @@ For each top idea (positive pilot signal), run a thorough novelty check:
 
 **Update `IDEA_REPORT.md`** with deep novelty results. Eliminate any idea that turns out to be already published.
 
-### Phase 4: Internal Critical Review
-
-For the surviving top idea(s), perform a rigorous internal critique:
-
-- Identify the strongest reviewer objections
-- List likely failure modes and missing controls
-- Propose minimum viable improvements to de-risk the idea
-
-**Update `IDEA_REPORT.md`** with internal review notes and a revised plan.
+### Phase 4: Internal Critical Review
+
+For the surviving top idea(s), perform a rigorous internal critique:
+
+- Identify the strongest reviewer objections
+- List likely failure modes and missing controls
+- Propose minimum viable improvements to de-risk the idea
+
+**Update `IDEA_REPORT.md`** with internal review notes and a revised plan.
 
 ### Phase 5: Final Report
 
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ Finalize `IDEA_REPORT.md` with all accumulated information:
 
 **Direction**: $ARGUMENTS
 **Date**: [today]
-**Pipeline**: research-lit → idea-creator → novelty-check → internal review
+**Pipeline**: research-lit → idea-creator → novelty-check → internal review
 
 ## Executive Summary
 [2-3 sentences: best idea, key evidence, recommended next step]
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ Finalize `IDEA_REPORT.md` with all accumulated information:
 ### 🏆 Idea 1: [title] — RECOMMENDED
 - Pilot: POSITIVE (+X%)
 - Novelty: CONFIRMED (closest: [paper], differentiation: [what's different])
-- Internal review notes: [top 2-3 risks + fixes]
+- Internal review notes: [top 2-3 risks + fixes]
 - Next step: implement full experiment → /ulw-loop
 
 ### Idea 2: [title] — BACKUP
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ Finalize `IDEA_REPORT.md` with all accumulated information:
 - **Kill ideas early.** It's better to kill 10 bad ideas in Phase 3 than to implement one and fail.
 - **Empirical signal > theoretical appeal.** An idea with a positive pilot outranks a "sounds great" idea without evidence.
 - **Document everything.** Dead ends are just as valuable as successes for future reference.
-- **Be honest in the critique.** Include negative results and failed pilots in the review notes.
+- **Be honest in the critique.** Include negative results and failed pilots in the review notes.
 - **Feishu notifications are optional.** If `~/.claude/feishu.json` exists, send `checkpoint` at each phase transition and `pipeline_done` at final report. If absent/off, skip silently.
 
 ## Composing with Workflow 2

package/generated/skills-bundles/full/skills/research/research-ideation/auto-claude__idea-discovery-robot/SKILL.md

@@ -13,12 +13,12 @@ Orchestrate a robotics-specific idea discovery workflow for: **$ARGUMENTS**
 
 ## Overview
 
-This skill chains three sub-skills into a single automated pipeline:
-
-```
-/research-lit → /idea-creator (robotics framing) → /novelty-check
-  (survey)              (filter + pilot plan)         (verify novel)
-```
+This skill chains three sub-skills into a single automated pipeline:
+
+```
+/research-lit → /idea-creator (robotics framing) → /novelty-check
+  (survey)              (filter + pilot plan)         (verify novel)
+```
 
 But every phase must be grounded in robotics-specific constraints:
 - **Embodiment**: arm, mobile manipulator, drone, humanoid, quadruped, autonomous car, etc.
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ The goal is not to produce flashy demos. The goal is to produce ideas that are:
 - **PILOT_MODE = `sim-first`** — Prefer simulation or offline-log pilots before any hardware execution
 - **REAL_ROBOT_PILOTS = `explicit approval only`** — Never assume physical robot access or approval
 - **AUTO_PROCEED = true** — If user does not respond at checkpoints, proceed with the best sim-first option
-- **TARGET_VENUES = CoRL, RSS, ICRA, IROS, RA-L** — Default novelty and reviewer framing
+- **TARGET_VENUES = CoRL, RSS, ICRA, IROS, RA-L** — Default novelty and reviewer framing
 
 > Override inline, e.g. `/idea-discovery-robot "bimanual manipulation" — only sim ideas, no real robot` or `/idea-discovery-robot "drone navigation" — focus on CoRL/RSS, 2 pilot ideas max`
 
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ For each idea, reject or heavily downrank if:
 2. [Idea 2] — Embodiment: [...] — Benchmark: [...] — Pilot: sim/offline — Risk: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH
 3. [Idea 3] — requires hardware / weak benchmark / high risk
 
-Should I carry the top sim-first ideas into novelty checking and internal review?
+Should I carry the top sim-first ideas into novelty checking and internal review?
 (If no response, I'll continue with the strongest benchmark-grounded ideas.)
 ```
 
@@ -267,16 +267,16 @@ Be especially skeptical of ideas that are just:
 
 If the method is not novel but the **finding** or **evaluation protocol** is, say that explicitly.
 
-## Phase 5: Internal Robotics Review
-
-Perform an internal senior-reviewer pass. Focus on:
-- whether the contribution is really new for robotics, not just ML
-- the minimum benchmark package needed for credibility
-- whether the sim2real story is justified
-- missing baselines or failure analyses
-- whether the idea survives realistic infrastructure constraints
-
-Update the report with the minimum viable evidence package.
+## Phase 5: Internal Robotics Review
+
+Perform an internal senior-reviewer pass. Focus on:
+- whether the contribution is really new for robotics, not just ML
+- the minimum benchmark package needed for credibility
+- whether the sim2real story is justified
+- missing baselines or failure analyses
+- whether the idea survives realistic infrastructure constraints
+
+Update the report with the minimum viable evidence package.
 
 ## Phase 6: Final Report
 
@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ Write or update `IDEA_REPORT.md` with a robotics-specific structure so it stays
 
 **Direction**: $ARGUMENTS
 **Date**: [today]
-**Pipeline**: research-lit → idea-creator (robotics framing) → novelty-check → internal review
+**Pipeline**: research-lit → idea-creator (robotics framing) → novelty-check → internal review
 
 ## Robotics Problem Frame
 - Embodiment:
@@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ Write or update `IDEA_REPORT.md` with a robotics-specific structure so it stays
 - Pilot type: sim / offline / real
 - Positive signal:
 - Novelty:
-- Internal review notes:
+- Internal review notes:
 - Hardware risk:
 - Next step: