@bohuyeshan/openagent-labforge-core 3.11.5 → 3.13.0

package/generated/skills-bundles/paper/skills/research/document-authoring/auto-claude__paper-writing/SKILL.md

@@ -13,22 +13,22 @@ Orchestrate a complete paper writing workflow for: **$ARGUMENTS**
 
 ## Overview
 
-This skill chains five sub-skills into a single automated pipeline:
-
-```
-/paper-plan → /paper-figure → /paper-write → /paper-compile → /ulw-loop
-  (outline)     (plots)        (LaTeX)        (build PDF)       (final QA + Oracle verify)
-```
+This skill chains five sub-skills into a single automated pipeline:
+
+```
+/paper-plan → /paper-figure → /paper-write → /paper-compile → /ulw-loop
+  (outline)     (plots)        (LaTeX)        (build PDF)       (final QA + Oracle verify)
+```
 
 Each phase builds on the previous one's output. The final deliverable is a polished, reviewed `paper/` directory with LaTeX source and compiled PDF.
 
 ## Constants
 
 - **VENUE = `ICLR`** — Target venue. Options: `ICLR`, `NeurIPS`, `ICML`. Affects style file, page limit, citation format.
-- **REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-5.4`** — Model used via Codex MCP for plan review, figure review, and writing review.
-- **AUTO_PROCEED = true** — Auto-continue between phases. Set `false` to pause and wait for user approval after each phase.
-
-> Override inline: `/paper-writing "NARRATIVE_REPORT.md" — venue: NeurIPS`
+- **REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-5.4`** — Model used via Codex MCP for plan review, figure review, and writing review.
+- **AUTO_PROCEED = true** — Auto-continue between phases. Set `false` to pause and wait for user approval after each phase.
+
+> Override inline: `/paper-writing "NARRATIVE_REPORT.md" — venue: NeurIPS`
 
 ## Inputs
 
@@ -164,25 +164,25 @@ Invoke `/paper-compile` to build the PDF:
 - Undefined references: 0
 - Undefined citations: 0
 
-Shall I proceed with the ULTRAWORK final QA?
-```
-
-### Phase 5: ULTRAWORK Final QA
-
-Invoke `/ulw-loop` to do a final evidence-based QA pass:
-
-```
-/ulw-loop "Final QA for paper/: verify claims vs figures, references, and compile output" --max-iterations=2
-```
-
-**What this does (recommend 1-2 rounds):**
-
-- Verify claims vs figures and tables
-- Check references, citations, and build artifacts
-- Fix inconsistencies, missing evidence, and presentation gaps
-- Oracle verifies completion; if not verified, iterate
-
-**Output:** `paper/main.pdf` plus a `ULTRAWORK_LOG.md` describing evidence and fixes.
+Shall I proceed with the ULTRAWORK final QA?
+```
+
+### Phase 5: ULTRAWORK Final QA
+
+Invoke `/ulw-loop` to do a final evidence-based QA pass:
+
+```
+/ulw-loop "Final QA for paper/: verify claims vs figures, references, and compile output" --max-iterations=2
+```
+
+**What this does (recommend 1-2 rounds):**
+
+- Verify claims vs figures and tables
+- Check references, citations, and build artifacts
+- Fix inconsistencies, missing evidence, and presentation gaps
+- Oracle verifies completion; if not verified, iterate
+
+**Output:** `paper/main.pdf` plus a `ULTRAWORK_LOG.md` describing evidence and fixes.
 
 **Format check** (included in improvement loop Step 8): After final recompilation, auto-detect and fix overfull hboxes (content exceeding margins), verify page count vs venue limit, and ensure compact formatting. Any overfull > 10pt is fixed before generating the final PDF.
 
@@ -203,11 +203,11 @@ Invoke `/ulw-loop` to do a final evidence-based QA pass:
 | 2. Figures | ✅ | figures/ ([N] auto + [M] manual) |
 | 3. LaTeX Writing | ✅ | paper/sections/*.tex ([N] sections, [M] citations) |
 | 4. Compilation | ✅ | paper/main.pdf ([X] pages) |
-| 5. ULTRAWORK QA | ✅ | ULTRAWORK_LOG.md |
+| 5. ULTRAWORK QA | ✅ | ULTRAWORK_LOG.md |
 
 ## Deliverables
 - paper/main.pdf — Final polished paper
-- paper/ULTRAWORK_LOG.md — QA log with evidence and fixes
+- paper/ULTRAWORK_LOG.md — QA log with evidence and fixes
 
 ## Remaining Issues (if any)
 - [items from final review that weren't addressed]

package/generated/skills-bundles/paper/skills/research/literature-and-web-search/auto-claude__arxiv/SKILL.md

@@ -6,128 +6,129 @@ allowed-tools: "Read, Write"
 metadata:
   category: "research/literature-and-web-search"
 ---
-# arXiv Paper Search & Download
-
-Search topic or arXiv paper ID: $ARGUMENTS
-
-## Constants
-
-- **PAPER_DIR** - Local directory to save downloaded PDFs. Default: `papers/` in the current project directory.
-- **MAX_RESULTS = 10** - Default number of search results.
-
-> Overrides (append to arguments):
-> - `/arxiv "attention mechanism" - max: 20` - return up to 20 results
-> - `/arxiv "2301.07041" - download` - download a specific paper by ID
-> - `/arxiv "query" - dir: literature/` - save PDFs to a custom directory
-> - `/arxiv "query" - download: all` - download all result PDFs
-
-## MCP Requirement (No Script Fallback)
-
-This skill uses MCP only. Ensure at least one of these is enabled:
-
-- `paper_search_mcp` (preferred, multi-source)
-- `arxiv_mcp` (arXiv-only)
-
-If MCP tools are missing, enable them in config:
-
-```json
-{
-  "mcp_policy": {
-    "enable": ["paper_search_mcp", "arxiv_mcp"]
-  }
-}
-```
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Step 1: Parse Arguments
-
-Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for directives:
-
-- **Query or ID**: main search term or a bare arXiv ID such as `2301.07041` or `cs/0601001`
-- **`- max: N`**: override MAX_RESULTS (e.g., `- max: 20`)
-- **`- dir: PATH`**: override PAPER_DIR (e.g., `- dir: literature/`)
-- **`- download`**: download the first result's PDF after listing
-- **`- download: all`**: download PDFs for all results
-
-If the argument matches an arXiv ID pattern (`YYMM.NNNNN` or `category/NNNNNNN`), skip the search and go directly to Step 3.
-
-### Step 2: Search arXiv (MCP)
-
-Use MCP tools to search:
-
-- Prefer `paper_search_mcp` if available (multi-source).
-- Otherwise use `arxiv_mcp` (arXiv-only).
-
-Call the search tool exposed by the MCP server (the exact tool name appears in your MCP tool list). Pass the query and `MAX_RESULTS`.
-
-Present results as a table:
-
-```text
-| # | arXiv ID   | Title               | Authors        | Date       | Category |
-|---|------------|---------------------|----------------|------------|----------|
-| 1 | 2301.07041 | Attention Is All... | Vaswani et al. | 2017-06-12 | cs.LG    |
-```
-
-### Step 3: Fetch Details for a Specific ID (MCP)
-
-Use the MCP server's fetch/details tool (if provided) to retrieve metadata for a specific arXiv ID.
-
-Display: title, all authors, categories, full abstract, published date, PDF URL, abstract URL.
-
-### Step 4: Download PDFs (MCP)
-
-When download is requested:
-
-- Use MCP download/fetch tool if available.
-- If the MCP server only returns URLs, create the directory and save the URL list so the user can fetch later.
-
-If a local file path is returned:
-
-- Confirm file size > 10 KB (reject smaller files - likely an error HTML page)
-- Add a 1-second delay between consecutive downloads to avoid rate limiting
-- Report: `Downloaded: papers/2301.07041.pdf (842 KB)`
-
-### Step 5: Summarize
-
-For each paper (downloaded or fetched by API):
-
-```markdown
-## [Title]
-
-- **arXiv**: [ID] - [abs_url]
-- **Authors**: [full author list]
-- **Date**: [published]
-- **Categories**: [cs.LG, cs.AI, ...]
-- **Abstract**: [full abstract]
-- **Key contributions** (extracted from abstract):
-  - [contribution 1]
-  - [contribution 2]
-  - [contribution 3]
-- **Local PDF**: papers/[ID].pdf (if downloaded)
-```
-
-### Step 6: Final Output
-
-Summarize what was done:
-
-- `Found N papers for "query"`
-- `Downloaded: papers/2301.07041.pdf (842 KB)` (for each download)
-- Any warnings (rate limit hit, file too small, already exists)
-
-Suggest follow-up skills:
-
-```text
-/research-lit "topic"     - multi-source review: Zotero + Obsidian + local PDFs + web
-/novelty-check "idea"     - verify your idea is novel against these papers
-```
-
-## Key Rules
-
-- Always show the arXiv ID prominently - users need it for citations and reproducibility
-- Verify downloaded PDFs: file must be > 10 KB; warn and delete if smaller
-- Rate limit: wait 1 second between consecutive PDF downloads; retry once after 5 seconds on HTTP 429
-- Never overwrite an existing PDF at the same path - skip it and report "already exists"
-- Handle both arXiv ID formats: new (`2301.07041`) and old (`cs/0601001`)
-- PAPER_DIR is created automatically if it does not exist
-- If the arXiv API is unreachable, report the error clearly and suggest using `/research-lit` with `- sources: web` as a fallback
+
+# arXiv Paper Search & Download
+
+Search topic or arXiv paper ID: $ARGUMENTS
+
+## Constants
+
+- **PAPER_DIR** - Local directory to save downloaded PDFs. Default: `papers/` in the current project directory.
+- **MAX_RESULTS = 10** - Default number of search results.
+
+> Overrides (append to arguments):
+> - `/arxiv "attention mechanism" - max: 20` - return up to 20 results
+> - `/arxiv "2301.07041" - download` - download a specific paper by ID
+> - `/arxiv "query" - dir: literature/` - save PDFs to a custom directory
+> - `/arxiv "query" - download: all` - download all result PDFs
+
+## MCP Requirement (No Script Fallback)
+
+This skill uses MCP only. Ensure at least one of these is enabled:
+
+- `paper_search_mcp` (preferred, multi-source)
+- `arxiv_mcp` (arXiv-only)
+
+If MCP tools are missing, enable them in config:
+
+```json
+{
+  "mcp_policy": {
+    "enable": ["paper_search_mcp", "arxiv_mcp"]
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Parse Arguments
+
+Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for directives:
+
+- **Query or ID**: main search term or a bare arXiv ID such as `2301.07041` or `cs/0601001`
+- **`- max: N`**: override MAX_RESULTS (e.g., `- max: 20`)
+- **`- dir: PATH`**: override PAPER_DIR (e.g., `- dir: literature/`)
+- **`- download`**: download the first result's PDF after listing
+- **`- download: all`**: download PDFs for all results
+
+If the argument matches an arXiv ID pattern (`YYMM.NNNNN` or `category/NNNNNNN`), skip the search and go directly to Step 3.
+
+### Step 2: Search arXiv (MCP)
+
+Use MCP tools to search:
+
+- Prefer `paper_search_mcp` if available (multi-source).
+- Otherwise use `arxiv_mcp` (arXiv-only).
+
+Call the search tool exposed by the MCP server (the exact tool name appears in your MCP tool list). Pass the query and `MAX_RESULTS`.
+
+Present results as a table:
+
+```text
+| # | arXiv ID   | Title               | Authors        | Date       | Category |
+|---|------------|---------------------|----------------|------------|----------|
+| 1 | 2301.07041 | Attention Is All... | Vaswani et al. | 2017-06-12 | cs.LG    |
+```
+
+### Step 3: Fetch Details for a Specific ID (MCP)
+
+Use the MCP server's fetch/details tool (if provided) to retrieve metadata for a specific arXiv ID.
+
+Display: title, all authors, categories, full abstract, published date, PDF URL, abstract URL.
+
+### Step 4: Download PDFs (MCP)
+
+When download is requested:
+
+- Use MCP download/fetch tool if available.
+- If the MCP server only returns URLs, create the directory and save the URL list so the user can fetch later.
+
+If a local file path is returned:
+
+- Confirm file size > 10 KB (reject smaller files - likely an error HTML page)
+- Add a 1-second delay between consecutive downloads to avoid rate limiting
+- Report: `Downloaded: papers/2301.07041.pdf (842 KB)`
+
+### Step 5: Summarize
+
+For each paper (downloaded or fetched by API):
+
+```markdown
+## [Title]
+
+- **arXiv**: [ID] - [abs_url]
+- **Authors**: [full author list]
+- **Date**: [published]
+- **Categories**: [cs.LG, cs.AI, ...]
+- **Abstract**: [full abstract]
+- **Key contributions** (extracted from abstract):
+  - [contribution 1]
+  - [contribution 2]
+  - [contribution 3]
+- **Local PDF**: papers/[ID].pdf (if downloaded)
+```
+
+### Step 6: Final Output
+
+Summarize what was done:
+
+- `Found N papers for "query"`
+- `Downloaded: papers/2301.07041.pdf (842 KB)` (for each download)
+- Any warnings (rate limit hit, file too small, already exists)
+
+Suggest follow-up skills:
+
+```text
+/research-lit "topic"     - multi-source review: Zotero + Obsidian + local PDFs + web
+/novelty-check "idea"     - verify your idea is novel against these papers
+```
+
+## Key Rules
+
+- Always show the arXiv ID prominently - users need it for citations and reproducibility
+- Verify downloaded PDFs: file must be > 10 KB; warn and delete if smaller
+- Rate limit: wait 1 second between consecutive PDF downloads; retry once after 5 seconds on HTTP 429
+- Never overwrite an existing PDF at the same path - skip it and report "already exists"
+- Handle both arXiv ID formats: new (`2301.07041`) and old (`cs/0601001`)
+- PAPER_DIR is created automatically if it does not exist
+- If the arXiv API is unreachable, report the error clearly and suggest using `/research-lit` with `- sources: web` as a fallback

package/generated/skills-bundles/paper/skills/research/literature-and-web-search/auto-claude__novelty-check/SKILL.md

@@ -6,82 +6,83 @@ allowed-tools: "WebSearch, WebFetch, Grep, Read, Glob, mcp__codex__codex"
 metadata:
   category: "research/literature-and-web-search"
 ---
-# Novelty Check Skill
-
-Check whether a proposed method/idea has already been done in the literature: **$ARGUMENTS**
-
-## Constants
-
-- REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-5.4` — Model used via Codex MCP. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g., `gpt-5.4`, `o3`, `gpt-4o`)
-
-## Instructions
-
-Given a method description, systematically verify its novelty:
-
-### Phase A: Extract Key Claims
-1. Read the user's method description
-2. Identify 3-5 core technical claims that would need to be novel:
-   - What is the method?
-   - What problem does it solve?
-   - What is the mechanism?
-   - What makes it different from obvious baselines?
-
-### Phase B: Multi-Source Literature Search
-For EACH core claim, search using ALL available sources:
-
-1. **Web Search** (via `WebSearch`):
-   - Search arXiv, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar
-   - Use specific technical terms from the claim
-   - Try at least 3 different query formulations per claim
-   - Include year filters for 2024-2026
-
-2. **Known paper databases**: Check against:
-   - ICLR 2025/2026, NeurIPS 2025, ICML 2025/2026
-   - Recent arXiv preprints (2025-2026)
-
-3. **Read abstracts**: For each potentially overlapping paper, WebFetch its abstract and related work section
-
-### Phase C: Cross-Model Verification
-Call REVIEWER_MODEL via Codex MCP (`mcp__codex__codex`) with xhigh reasoning:
-```
-config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
-```
-Prompt should include:
-- The proposed method description
-- All papers found in Phase B
-- Ask: "Is this method novel? What is the closest prior work? What is the delta?"
-
-### Phase D: Novelty Report
-Output a structured report:
-
-```markdown
-## Novelty Check Report
-
-### Proposed Method
-[1-2 sentence description]
-
-### Core Claims
-1. [Claim 1] — Novelty: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — Closest: [paper]
-2. [Claim 2] — Novelty: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — Closest: [paper]
-...
-
-### Closest Prior Work
-| Paper | Year | Venue | Overlap | Key Difference |
-|-------|------|-------|---------|----------------|
-
-### Overall Novelty Assessment
-- Score: X/10
-- Recommendation: PROCEED / PROCEED WITH CAUTION / ABANDON
-- Key differentiator: [what makes this unique, if anything]
-- Risk: [what a reviewer would cite as prior work]
-
-### Suggested Positioning
-[How to frame the contribution to maximize novelty perception]
-```
-
-### Important Rules
-- Be BRUTALLY honest — false novelty claims waste months of research time
-- "Applying X to Y" is NOT novel unless the application reveals surprising insights
-- Check both the method AND the experimental setting for novelty
-- If the method is not novel but the FINDING would be, say so explicitly
-- Always check the most recent 6 months of arXiv — the field moves fast
+
+# Novelty Check Skill
+
+Check whether a proposed method/idea has already been done in the literature: **$ARGUMENTS**
+
+## Constants
+
+- REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-5.4` — Model used via Codex MCP. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g., `gpt-5.4`, `o3`, `gpt-4o`)
+
+## Instructions
+
+Given a method description, systematically verify its novelty:
+
+### Phase A: Extract Key Claims
+1. Read the user's method description
+2. Identify 3-5 core technical claims that would need to be novel:
+   - What is the method?
+   - What problem does it solve?
+   - What is the mechanism?
+   - What makes it different from obvious baselines?
+
+### Phase B: Multi-Source Literature Search
+For EACH core claim, search using ALL available sources:
+
+1. **Web Search** (via `WebSearch`):
+   - Search arXiv, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar
+   - Use specific technical terms from the claim
+   - Try at least 3 different query formulations per claim
+   - Include year filters for 2024-2026
+
+2. **Known paper databases**: Check against:
+   - ICLR 2025/2026, NeurIPS 2025, ICML 2025/2026
+   - Recent arXiv preprints (2025-2026)
+
+3. **Read abstracts**: For each potentially overlapping paper, WebFetch its abstract and related work section
+
+### Phase C: Cross-Model Verification
+Call REVIEWER_MODEL via Codex MCP (`mcp__codex__codex`) with xhigh reasoning:
+```
+config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
+```
+Prompt should include:
+- The proposed method description
+- All papers found in Phase B
+- Ask: "Is this method novel? What is the closest prior work? What is the delta?"
+
+### Phase D: Novelty Report
+Output a structured report:
+
+```markdown
+## Novelty Check Report
+
+### Proposed Method
+[1-2 sentence description]
+
+### Core Claims
+1. [Claim 1] — Novelty: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — Closest: [paper]
+2. [Claim 2] — Novelty: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — Closest: [paper]
+...
+
+### Closest Prior Work
+| Paper | Year | Venue | Overlap | Key Difference |
+|-------|------|-------|---------|----------------|
+
+### Overall Novelty Assessment
+- Score: X/10
+- Recommendation: PROCEED / PROCEED WITH CAUTION / ABANDON
+- Key differentiator: [what makes this unique, if anything]
+- Risk: [what a reviewer would cite as prior work]
+
+### Suggested Positioning
+[How to frame the contribution to maximize novelty perception]
+```
+
+### Important Rules
+- Be BRUTALLY honest — false novelty claims waste months of research time
+- "Applying X to Y" is NOT novel unless the application reveals surprising insights
+- Check both the method AND the experimental setting for novelty
+- If the method is not novel but the FINDING would be, say so explicitly
+- Always check the most recent 6 months of arXiv — the field moves fast