paperlint 2.0.0

package/skills/paper-status/paper-status.eval.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+/**
+ * paper-status — the PAID tier: does this skill's description actually fire?
+ *
+ * COLOCATED ON PURPOSE (vigiles decides coverage by placement as of 2026-08-11).
+ * The prompts live in `.claude/lib/skill-trigger-cases.mjs` so every case is
+ * reviewed as one table where collisions between siblings are visible; copying
+ * them here would recreate the drift that rule exists to prevent.
+ *
+ * Measures recall (fires on its own territory) AND precision (stays quiet on a
+ * colliding sibling's territory), against the REAL `.claude` harness so the skill
+ * competes with every other installed description — an isolated run overstates
+ * recall and understates false positives.
+ *
+ * ⚠️ NEVER RUN. This case was written 2026-08-11 with the other two the coverage
+ * sweep surfaced; its rate is UNKNOWN, not assumed good.
+ *
+ * Costs money; not CI.
+ *   node .claude/skills/paper-status/paper-status.eval.mjs [trials]
+ */
+import { runSkillTriggerEval } from "../../lib/skill-eval-kit.mjs";
+
+await runSkillTriggerEval("paper-status");

package/skills/paper-status/paper-status.harness.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+/**
+ * paper-status — the free, deterministic tier. No model, no network.
+ *
+ * 🔴 THIS SKILL WAS NOT MERELY UNTESTED — IT WAS UNREACHABLE BY THE HARNESS.
+ * `skill-corpus.mjs` carried `paper-status` in an EXCLUDED map whose recorded
+ * reason is "it has no gate row", a statement about ONE assertion. The code
+ * filtered it out of the checked set ENTIRELY, so it also skipped the strict-YAML
+ * frontmatter parse, the tool contract, the script-paths check and the identity
+ * check. Adding a file here would have thrown ("not a wired pipeline skill")
+ * rather than testing anything. Fixed 2026-08-11: the exclusion now applies at
+ * assertion 12b alone, and the sweep went 21 skills to 22.
+ *
+ * That is the general shape worth remembering: a surface can read as untested
+ * when the missing piece is not a test file but a filter upstream of it.
+ *
+ * The assertions live in `.claude/lib/skill-checks.mjs` and are CALLED with this
+ * skill's name — not copied. 22 copies of the same checks is the drift that module
+ * exists to prevent.
+ *
+ * What it does NOT prove: that the skill fires, or that its report is right.
+ * See `paper-status.eval.mjs`.
+ */
+import { checkSkill } from "../../lib/skill-checks.mjs";
+
+await checkSkill("paper-status");

package/skills/pc-panel-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+---
+name: pc-panel-review
+description: Use when asking "what would the program committee decide?" / "simulate the reviewers" / "what's this paper's accept probability?" on a drafted paper + artifact. Spawns N independent reviewers with DISTINCT lenses (one actually RUNS the artifact), then synthesizes a PC-chair meta-review into an accept/reject decision, a calibrated probability, and consensus must-fixes. Requires grade-paper-writing's persona stall inventory + tighten-paper's structural verdict as inputs (blocked until they exist — the panel cannot feel reader fatigue on its own). Also has a lightweight single-reviewer VENUE-FIT MODE for a quick CFP-fit spot-check. NOT a single fast defect hunt (paper-adversarial-review), a writing grade (grade-paper-writing), or the full pre-submit gate (harden-paper, which calls this) — this models the PC decision itself.
+allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent, Skill]
+---
+
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:9622701a349ea249 compiled from skills/pc-panel-review/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+
+# pc-panel-review — model the whole PC, not one reviewer
+
+> **Which review skill?** `paper-adversarial-review` = one hostile reviewer, fast defect hunt.
+> `pc-panel-review` (you are here) = the whole PC (N independent lenses incl. an artifact-runner) + a
+> chair meta-review — the real pre-submission GATE, run LAST. This skill also has a **Venue-fit mode**
+> (below): ONE reviewer scoring a named venue's CFP rubric to predict its accept/reject — the quick
+> single-lens spot-check (formerly the standalone `venue-review-sim` skill). Reach for Venue-fit mode or
+> `paper-adversarial-review` for a fast spot-check; run the full panel (this) for the decision.
+
+## Run me
+
+🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
+
+```
+node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs pc-panel-review <paper-dir>
+```
+
+An advisory pass cannot be observed failing — silence is both its error state and its normal
+state — so starting is an event, and events get written down.
+
+The Venue-fit mode gives ONE reviewer's fit score; `paper-adversarial-review` gives ONE defect hunt.
+A real decision is made by **2–4 reviewers with different priorities + a meta-review** that weighs
+consensus over any single voice. This skill runs that. The payoff over a single review: a **must-fix
+is what ≥2 independent reviewers flag** — that filters real blockers from one reviewer's hobbyhorse —
+and at least one reviewer **executes the artifact**, which surfaces paper↔artifact mismatches no
+prose-only read can.
+
+## How to run it
+
+1. **Get the venue rubric + bar** (fetch the CFP; quote the criteria). Calibrate to the *track*: a
+   WIP/short/workshop bar rewards promise and discussion value; a full-paper/top-tier bar demands
+   completeness. Do not import top-tier standards into a WIP review.
+2. **Collect the two readability/structure artifacts — the panel is BLOCKED without them.** Before any
+   reviewer spawns, there must exist for THIS draft: (a) the **persona stall inventory** from
+   `grade-paper-writing` (the "Sam" per-section cold read), and (b) the **structural verdict** from
+   `tighten-paper` (length / sag / TMI / cut-plan). If either doesn't exist yet, STOP and run those
+   skills first.
+
+   🔴 **Invoke them BY NAME with the Skill tool — do not describe the need and hope.** Whether
+   `grade-paper-writing` gets selected from its description is **unstable**, and that is worse for a
+   hard gate than a low rate would be: identical prompts, identical description, identical roster
+   measured **21%** in the morning of 2026-08-08 and **50–54%** the same afternoon, in two
+   independently written implementations
+   (`../paper-pipeline/repro/2026-08-08-grade-paper-writing-ablation-raw.log`,
+   `2026-08-08-parent-replication.log`). Seven rewrites of the description — shorter, negations
+   stripped, machinery stripped, persona-only — all landed inside noise, so there is nothing to fix
+   in the text. Naming the skill explicitly does not depend on selection at all, so this gate stops
+   resting on the one part of the chain that does. Writing "run grade-paper-writing" and leaving the
+   invocation to a description match is the failure this line exists to remove.
+
+   Why hard-block: a frontier-LLM reviewer knows every term and cannot feel reader
+   fatigue, so a panel scoring on its own felt read will score a bloated, unreadable paper high
+   (proven: ~88% accept on a paper the human reader found exhausting). These two artifacts are the
+   panel's only legitimate source for the readability/structure signal.
+   *(Scorecard: this gate is row **`panel`**, and it declares **`structure`** (tighten-paper) + **`writing`**
+   (grade-paper-writing) as its required inputs — `pipeline-check.mjs` reports `panel` marked done while
+   either input is missing or newer than it.)*
+3. **Pick 3 (or 4) reviewer lenses** that a real PC for THIS venue would field. Menu — choose by fit:
+   - **Methods/stats skeptic** — sample size, construct validity, multiple comparisons, overclaims,
+     whether the CIs support the claims.
+   - **Domain practitioner** — relevance to the CFP, novelty vs the nearest prior work, does the
+     finding change behavior, generalizability, fairness/tone toward anyone named.
+   - **Artifact / reproducibility reviewer (MANDATORY if an artifact is attached)** — *actually
+     `cd` into the artifact and run it*; verify every headline number reproduces; read the code for
+     circularity (echoing stored fields vs recomputing); grep all files (incl. data + compiled
+     caches) for anonymization leaks; scope the badge (Available / Functional / Reproduced).
+   - **Security/ethics reviewer** (security venues) — threat model soundness, responsible disclosure,
+     punching-down risk.
+   - **Novelty/related-work reviewer** — is the delta over the nearest neighbor explicit; obvious
+     uncited work.
+4. **Spawn them in PARALLEL, each on a separate model instance** (e.g. Fable via subagent), each blind
+   to the others — independence is the whole point. Give each: the paper (`.tex`/PDF), the artifact
+   path, the quoted rubric, its lens, **and the two step-2 artifacts (persona stall inventory +
+   tighten-paper structural verdict)**. Force a filled review form (below).
+5. **Synthesize the meta-review yourself** (PC chair) once all land — see output.
+
+## Each reviewer returns a review form
+- Per-criterion score on the venue's scale (map to 1–5 if unstated), one line each, grounded.
+- Overall rec (Reject … Strong Accept) + confidence (1–5).
+- **Readability's implicit drag — model the halo effect, DRIVEN BY THE PERSONA INVENTORY, not felt
+  judgment.** A real reviewer who finds the paper a slog silently loses confidence in the *science* and
+  lowers the OVERALL score, while writing "methodology concerns" in the box — the penalty rarely shows
+  up as an explicit "clarity" mark. Each reviewer must let prose/structure quality move their overall
+  rec and confidence — but the SOURCE of that signal is the handed-in **persona stall inventory +
+  tighten-paper verdict**, never the reviewer's own felt read: a frontier LLM knows every term and
+  cannot experience reader fatigue, so its felt judgment systematically under-fires. If the inventory
+  shows high stall density / walls, or the structural verdict says bloated, the overall score takes a
+  real hit even when every explicit criterion passes. Never score a slog as if it read cleanly — that
+  is the gap between this sim and a real PC.
+- Top 3 issues for PC discussion, ranked, with severity (blocker/major/minor).
+- Any must-fix before *they'd* accept (or "none").
+- Artifact reviewer only: run outcome (does it execute? every number reproduce? PASS/FAIL per check),
+  anonymization verdict, badge scope.
+- One-line meta: does this belong at this venue?
+
+## The meta-review (PC-chair synthesis) — the actual deliverable
+- **Score table:** each reviewer × each criterion + overall + confidence, at a glance.
+- **Decision:** the rec the PC discussion converges on (weight by confidence; a lone low-confidence
+  outlier doesn't sink two confident accepts), + a **calibrated accept probability** for this venue
+  and edition.
+- **Consensus must-fixes:** issues **≥2 reviewers independently raised** — these are the real ones;
+  apply before submitting.
+- **Single-reviewer flags:** noted, triaged (fix if cheap, else defer to camera-ready).
+- **Split calls:** where reviewers genuinely disagree, and which way the chair leans + why.
+- **Pre-submission checklist:** the surgical edits, ranked, that move the probability most.
+
+## 🔴 The ceiling is not a sentence — it is a PLAN, and the panel writes it
+
+**The corpus owner, 2026-08-05: "weak accept doesn't work for us. skills should suggest what to do to fix
+the situation."** He is right that this was missing. Three panels in a row named the same ceiling, it was
+faithfully recorded three times, and it never once became work. The fourth panel named it again — and
+the author wrote all three of its prongs off as *"facts, not worth chasing before the deadline"*. Two
+of the three were closed by an hour of editing that same afternoon.
+
+So a panel that reports Weak Accept or Borderline **must** end with a ceiling plan: every prong
+classified, no exceptions, using exactly these three labels.
+
+| label | means | what the panel owes |
+|---|---|---|
+| **TEXT** | an edit closes it — the evidence already exists and the paper fails to join it up, frame it, or show the reader what the alternative would look like | the actual sentence or paragraph to write, and where it goes |
+| **EXPERIMENT** | only new measurement closes it | what would have to be run, and a rough cost, so the decision to skip is informed |
+| **IMMOVABLE** | it is what the work *is* — the scope, the population, the yield | say so plainly, so nobody re-opens it next round |
+
+**Why the labels and not prose.** "This is a fact about the work" is the cheapest thing a reviewer can
+write and the hardest to argue with, so it is where an unwilling author hides. Forcing a label makes
+the claim falsifiable: *TEXT* invites "then write it", and *IMMOVABLE* invites "is it really?".
+
+**Two failure shapes to check yourself against**, both observed on `the reference paper`:
+
+- **A number reported as a rate when it is a floor.** "8 contradictions in 1,836 repositories" read as
+  a small phenomenon; the same paper measured its own extractor's recall at under half, and never
+  joined the two. That is TEXT, not EXPERIMENT.
+- **A position on a ladder given without the rungs above it.** "Ours reaches rung three of four" reads
+  as a shortfall until the paper says what rungs one and two would require and that nobody has built
+  them. Also TEXT.
+
+🔴 **A deadline is a constraint on how much you rework, never an argument for the current form.** If
+the author invokes it against a TEXT prong, that is the failure this section exists to catch.
+
+**Enforced** by `../paper-pipeline/scripts/pipeline-check.mjs` → `ceiling-unplanned`: a ceiling recorded
+in the scorecard whose prongs carry none of the three labels is a finding.
+
+## Record the verdict
+
+🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
+
+```
+node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record pc-panel-review <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
+node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record pc-panel-review <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
+```
+
+**FINDING** — `<count>` is the number of **consensus** must-fixes (flagged by ≥2 independent
+reviewers, not the union of everything anyone said), `<report-path>` is the meta-review. Add
+`--blocking` when the chair's decision is reject.
+**ABSTAINED** — `blocked`: the panel never ran because its required inputs (the persona stall
+inventory, the structural verdict) do not exist. `no-witness`: the panel ran and reached no
+consensus must-fix.
+
+🔴 **THIS IS THE SKILL THE DELETION OF `PASS` WAS WRITTEN FOR.** Five model reviewers from one
+vendor agreeing was being recorded as an acquittal — and correlated agreement between instances of
+one model is not independent evidence of anything. There is now no constructor that can say it.
+"Accept with no must-fix" is `ABSTAINED no-witness`: the panel produced no finding, which is a fact
+about the panel and not a fact about the paper.
+
+🔴 **The `blocked` row is the one that matters most here.** A blocked panel and a panel nobody
+launched read identically in prose, and on 2026-08-04 a status line said the panel was running when
+it had never been launched at all. Record the block; do not leave the check silent.
+
+Venue-fit mode records under the same skill name with the fit verdict and `<count>` 0 — it is one
+reviewer's spot-check, and its row should not be mistaken for the panel's decision.
+
+## Rules
+- **Independence is non-negotiable** — never let reviewers see each other's reviews before the
+  meta-review; shared context collapses the panel into one voice.
+- **Consensus > volume.** One reviewer with ten nits loses to two reviewers naming the same blocker.
+- **The artifact reviewer must actually run the code**, not read about it — that lens exists to catch
+  what prose review can't (dead links, circular self-checks, paper↔artifact number mismatches, leaks).
+- Judge against the venue's ACTUAL bar; reward fit/discussion-value for workshops.
+- Report the run honestly — if the artifact fails or a number doesn't reproduce, that IS the finding.
+- Don't fabricate the CFP or citations; fetch/verify.
+- **Review-ratchet rule — when the panel's must-fixes include an overclaim, inline-hedging is the LAST
+  resort.** Tighten → cut → move to Threats → only then hedge; and run `tighten-paper` after the round
+  to strip what it deposited. Full rule, with the cost of skipping it:
+  `paper-pipeline/references/review-ratchet.md`.
+
+## Venue-fit mode (single-lens spot-check — the merged `venue-review-sim`)
+When a full panel is overkill and you just want to predict **"given THIS venue's criteria, bar, and
+culture, would a real reviewer accept it, and what scores?"**, run **one** venue-fit reviewer scoring
+the specific CFP rubric — the fast fit-prediction lens (this absorbs the former standalone
+`venue-review-sim` skill). It answers a different question than the defect hunt: fit-to-CFP and matching
+the venue's expectation (a WIP workshop short paper vs a top-tier full paper) decide most workshop
+outcomes, often more than raw defect count.
+
+Run it:
+1. **Fetch the venue's actual review criteria** — the CFP topics, paper types, stated review criteria,
+   workshop goals, blind model. Quote the exact criteria. If none stated, use the venue-class default
+   (workshops: relevance / originality / technical quality / clarity; security venues add threat-model
+   soundness + ethics). Do NOT fabricate the CFP — fetch it; say when you fall back to the default.
+2. **Adopt the reviewer persona for THAT venue** — a PC member who knows the sub-field, cares about the
+   workshop's goals (e.g. "foster discussion", "bridge research–practice"), and calibrates to the paper
+   TYPE (a short/WIP/position paper is judged for promise and discussion value, NOT the completeness
+   demanded of a full paper — don't reject a WIP for "only 2 tools" if the venue invites WIP).
+3. **Use a separate model as the reviewer** (e.g. Fable via subagent) so the author isn't grading
+   itself. Give it the full paper text + the quoted CFP criteria.
+
+Output — fill the venue's review form:
+- **Per-criterion score** on the venue's scale (map to 1–5 if unstated), one for EACH stated criterion,
+  each with a one-line justification grounded in the paper.
+- **Overall recommendation** (Accept / Weak Accept / Borderline / Weak Reject / Reject) + **reviewer
+  confidence** (low/med/high).
+- **Fit-to-CFP**: which listed topics it hits, and whether the framing foregrounds them (a
+  trustworthiness/verification workshop wants that word in the abstract).
+- **Type-appropriateness**: is it pitched right for its track (WIP/vision/position/short vs full)? Call
+  out over-reach for a short paper or an under-sold real contribution.
+- **What the PC discussion would say** — the 2–3 meta-review sentences that decide it, as a PC chair
+  would summarize.
+- **Minimum changes to flip a borderline to accept** — the specific, venue-relevant edits (often:
+  foreground the on-topic framing, right-size claims to the track, add the one obviously-expected
+  citation) — NOT a full defect list.
+- **Predicted outcome + probability**, calibrated to the venue's selectivity and edition (first-edition
+  workshops are more welcoming; established ones more competitive).
+
+Rules: judge against the venue's ACTUAL bar and goals, not an abstract ideal; reward fit and
+discussion-value for workshops, reserve full-paper rigor for full-paper tracks; be honest about
+reject-risk without rubber-stamping. For the real decision, escalate to the full panel below.
+
+## Compose with
+- `paper-adversarial-review` (defect hunt) as an *input* — this skill is the layer above it (and above
+  its own Venue-fit mode). Run the full panel LAST, after a hardening pass, as the final pre-submission
+  gate.
+- Append each panel's result to the paper's review ledger
+  (`papers/research/<date>-fable-rereview-<venue>.md`) so accept-probability progression is tracked
+  across rounds.
+
+## The reproduce loop (why this beats a prose review)
+This is "double-blind review as a real venue does it, WITH reproduction." The artifact-runner reviewer
+is the difference-maker on both runs so far: it doesn't judge the paper's numbers, it re-derives them.
+Run the panel, apply the consensus fixes, then **re-run the panel** (same lenses, told what changed) to
+confirm the fixes landed and nothing regressed — the artifact-runner re-executes every harness each
+round. Track the accept-probability progression in the review ledger. Stop when the panel converges to
+accept and the artifact reproduces clean; don't loop past one confirming round.
+
+## Provenance (two papers, battle-tested)
+- **AgenticDev 2026** (2026-07-12): 3 lenses (stats / practitioner / artifact-runner) + chair. Caught
+  what two prior single-lens rounds missed — a paper↔artifact mismatch ("raw 140-run data" vs shipped
+  per-arm aggregates) and a mislabeled "paired" test, both flagged by ≥2 reviewers. Round→confirm:
+  ~85%→90%.
+- **AISec 2026 @ CCS** (2026-07-13): same shape at a harder (top-tier security) bar. The artifact-runner
+  ran all four harnesses AND stress-tested the release gate (planted a leak, confirmed it caught it);
+  the ethics reviewer caught the release-vs-paper anonymization contradiction (the released artifact
+  named 46 maintainers) — the single highest reject-vector, invisible to a paper-only read. After the
+  fixes + a confirm round, all three moved to Accept (~87–88%, from Weak-Accept/conditional/leak-risk).
+  Lesson: the two things that most move a security paper — an ethics/disclosure contradiction and a
+  reproduction/anonymization leak — live in the ARTIFACT, so the artifact-runner + an ethics lens are
+  non-optional at security venues.

package/skills/pc-panel-review/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
+// Compiled to SKILL.md by `vigiles compile`. Edit THIS file, never the markdown.
+//
+// Adopted 2026-08-17 (batch 3). Body carried over VERBATIM so the compiled diff shows
+// only what the compiler adds. No `disallowedTools` fence yet — the field landed on
+// `SkillSpec` in vigiles branch `claude/skill-disallowed-tools` and is not in a release
+// this repo installs, so writing one here would not compile.
+import { experimental_skill } from "vigiles/spec";
+
+export default experimental_skill({
+  name: "pc-panel-review",
+  description:
+    'Use when asking "what would the program committee decide?" / "simulate the reviewers" / "what\'s this paper\'s accept probability?" on a drafted paper + artifact. Spawns N independent reviewers with DISTINCT lenses (one actually RUNS the artifact), then synthesizes a PC-chair meta-review into an accept/reject decision, a calibrated probability, and consensus must-fixes. Requires grade-paper-writing\'s persona stall inventory + tighten-paper\'s structural verdict as inputs (blocked until they exist — the panel cannot feel reader fatigue on its own). Also has a lightweight single-reviewer VENUE-FIT MODE for a quick CFP-fit spot-check. NOT a single fast defect hunt (paper-adversarial-review), a writing grade (grade-paper-writing), or the full pre-submit gate (harden-paper, which calls this) — this models the PC decision itself.',
+  tools: [
+    "Read",
+    "Write",
+    "Grep",
+    "Glob",
+    "Bash",
+    "WebSearch",
+    "WebFetch",
+    "Agent",
+    "Skill",
+  ],
+  body: `
+# pc-panel-review — model the whole PC, not one reviewer
+
+> **Which review skill?** \`paper-adversarial-review\` = one hostile reviewer, fast defect hunt.
+> \`pc-panel-review\` (you are here) = the whole PC (N independent lenses incl. an artifact-runner) + a
+> chair meta-review — the real pre-submission GATE, run LAST. This skill also has a **Venue-fit mode**
+> (below): ONE reviewer scoring a named venue's CFP rubric to predict its accept/reject — the quick
+> single-lens spot-check (formerly the standalone \`venue-review-sim\` skill). Reach for Venue-fit mode or
+> \`paper-adversarial-review\` for a fast spot-check; run the full panel (this) for the decision.
+
+## Run me
+
+🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
+
+\`\`\`
+node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs pc-panel-review <paper-dir>
+\`\`\`
+
+An advisory pass cannot be observed failing — silence is both its error state and its normal
+state — so starting is an event, and events get written down.
+
+The Venue-fit mode gives ONE reviewer's fit score; \`paper-adversarial-review\` gives ONE defect hunt.
+A real decision is made by **2–4 reviewers with different priorities + a meta-review** that weighs
+consensus over any single voice. This skill runs that. The payoff over a single review: a **must-fix
+is what ≥2 independent reviewers flag** — that filters real blockers from one reviewer's hobbyhorse —
+and at least one reviewer **executes the artifact**, which surfaces paper↔artifact mismatches no
+prose-only read can.
+
+## How to run it
+
+1. **Get the venue rubric + bar** (fetch the CFP; quote the criteria). Calibrate to the *track*: a
+   WIP/short/workshop bar rewards promise and discussion value; a full-paper/top-tier bar demands
+   completeness. Do not import top-tier standards into a WIP review.
+2. **Collect the two readability/structure artifacts — the panel is BLOCKED without them.** Before any
+   reviewer spawns, there must exist for THIS draft: (a) the **persona stall inventory** from
+   \`grade-paper-writing\` (the "Sam" per-section cold read), and (b) the **structural verdict** from
+   \`tighten-paper\` (length / sag / TMI / cut-plan). If either doesn't exist yet, STOP and run those
+   skills first.
+
+   🔴 **Invoke them BY NAME with the Skill tool — do not describe the need and hope.** Whether
+   \`grade-paper-writing\` gets selected from its description is **unstable**, and that is worse for a
+   hard gate than a low rate would be: identical prompts, identical description, identical roster
+   measured **21%** in the morning of 2026-08-08 and **50–54%** the same afternoon, in two
+   independently written implementations
+   (\`../paper-pipeline/repro/2026-08-08-grade-paper-writing-ablation-raw.log\`,
+   \`2026-08-08-parent-replication.log\`). Seven rewrites of the description — shorter, negations
+   stripped, machinery stripped, persona-only — all landed inside noise, so there is nothing to fix
+   in the text. Naming the skill explicitly does not depend on selection at all, so this gate stops
+   resting on the one part of the chain that does. Writing "run grade-paper-writing" and leaving the
+   invocation to a description match is the failure this line exists to remove.
+
+   Why hard-block: a frontier-LLM reviewer knows every term and cannot feel reader
+   fatigue, so a panel scoring on its own felt read will score a bloated, unreadable paper high
+   (proven: ~88% accept on a paper the human reader found exhausting). These two artifacts are the
+   panel's only legitimate source for the readability/structure signal.
+   *(Scorecard: this gate is row **\`panel\`**, and it declares **\`structure\`** (tighten-paper) + **\`writing\`**
+   (grade-paper-writing) as its required inputs — \`pipeline-check.mjs\` reports \`panel\` marked done while
+   either input is missing or newer than it.)*
+3. **Pick 3 (or 4) reviewer lenses** that a real PC for THIS venue would field. Menu — choose by fit:
+   - **Methods/stats skeptic** — sample size, construct validity, multiple comparisons, overclaims,
+     whether the CIs support the claims.
+   - **Domain practitioner** — relevance to the CFP, novelty vs the nearest prior work, does the
+     finding change behavior, generalizability, fairness/tone toward anyone named.
+   - **Artifact / reproducibility reviewer (MANDATORY if an artifact is attached)** — *actually
+     \`cd\` into the artifact and run it*; verify every headline number reproduces; read the code for
+     circularity (echoing stored fields vs recomputing); grep all files (incl. data + compiled
+     caches) for anonymization leaks; scope the badge (Available / Functional / Reproduced).
+   - **Security/ethics reviewer** (security venues) — threat model soundness, responsible disclosure,
+     punching-down risk.
+   - **Novelty/related-work reviewer** — is the delta over the nearest neighbor explicit; obvious
+     uncited work.
+4. **Spawn them in PARALLEL, each on a separate model instance** (e.g. Fable via subagent), each blind
+   to the others — independence is the whole point. Give each: the paper (\`.tex\`/PDF), the artifact
+   path, the quoted rubric, its lens, **and the two step-2 artifacts (persona stall inventory +
+   tighten-paper structural verdict)**. Force a filled review form (below).
+5. **Synthesize the meta-review yourself** (PC chair) once all land — see output.
+
+## Each reviewer returns a review form
+- Per-criterion score on the venue's scale (map to 1–5 if unstated), one line each, grounded.
+- Overall rec (Reject … Strong Accept) + confidence (1–5).
+- **Readability's implicit drag — model the halo effect, DRIVEN BY THE PERSONA INVENTORY, not felt
+  judgment.** A real reviewer who finds the paper a slog silently loses confidence in the *science* and
+  lowers the OVERALL score, while writing "methodology concerns" in the box — the penalty rarely shows
+  up as an explicit "clarity" mark. Each reviewer must let prose/structure quality move their overall
+  rec and confidence — but the SOURCE of that signal is the handed-in **persona stall inventory +
+  tighten-paper verdict**, never the reviewer's own felt read: a frontier LLM knows every term and
+  cannot experience reader fatigue, so its felt judgment systematically under-fires. If the inventory
+  shows high stall density / walls, or the structural verdict says bloated, the overall score takes a
+  real hit even when every explicit criterion passes. Never score a slog as if it read cleanly — that
+  is the gap between this sim and a real PC.
+- Top 3 issues for PC discussion, ranked, with severity (blocker/major/minor).
+- Any must-fix before *they'd* accept (or "none").
+- Artifact reviewer only: run outcome (does it execute? every number reproduce? PASS/FAIL per check),
+  anonymization verdict, badge scope.
+- One-line meta: does this belong at this venue?
+
+## The meta-review (PC-chair synthesis) — the actual deliverable
+- **Score table:** each reviewer × each criterion + overall + confidence, at a glance.
+- **Decision:** the rec the PC discussion converges on (weight by confidence; a lone low-confidence
+  outlier doesn't sink two confident accepts), + a **calibrated accept probability** for this venue
+  and edition.
+- **Consensus must-fixes:** issues **≥2 reviewers independently raised** — these are the real ones;
+  apply before submitting.
+- **Single-reviewer flags:** noted, triaged (fix if cheap, else defer to camera-ready).
+- **Split calls:** where reviewers genuinely disagree, and which way the chair leans + why.
+- **Pre-submission checklist:** the surgical edits, ranked, that move the probability most.
+
+## 🔴 The ceiling is not a sentence — it is a PLAN, and the panel writes it
+
+**The corpus owner, 2026-08-05: "weak accept doesn't work for us. skills should suggest what to do to fix
+the situation."** He is right that this was missing. Three panels in a row named the same ceiling, it was
+faithfully recorded three times, and it never once became work. The fourth panel named it again — and
+the author wrote all three of its prongs off as *"facts, not worth chasing before the deadline"*. Two
+of the three were closed by an hour of editing that same afternoon.
+
+So a panel that reports Weak Accept or Borderline **must** end with a ceiling plan: every prong
+classified, no exceptions, using exactly these three labels.
+
+| label | means | what the panel owes |
+|---|---|---|
+| **TEXT** | an edit closes it — the evidence already exists and the paper fails to join it up, frame it, or show the reader what the alternative would look like | the actual sentence or paragraph to write, and where it goes |
+| **EXPERIMENT** | only new measurement closes it | what would have to be run, and a rough cost, so the decision to skip is informed |
+| **IMMOVABLE** | it is what the work *is* — the scope, the population, the yield | say so plainly, so nobody re-opens it next round |
+
+**Why the labels and not prose.** "This is a fact about the work" is the cheapest thing a reviewer can
+write and the hardest to argue with, so it is where an unwilling author hides. Forcing a label makes
+the claim falsifiable: *TEXT* invites "then write it", and *IMMOVABLE* invites "is it really?".
+
+**Two failure shapes to check yourself against**, both observed on \`the reference paper\`:
+
+- **A number reported as a rate when it is a floor.** "8 contradictions in 1,836 repositories" read as
+  a small phenomenon; the same paper measured its own extractor's recall at under half, and never
+  joined the two. That is TEXT, not EXPERIMENT.
+- **A position on a ladder given without the rungs above it.** "Ours reaches rung three of four" reads
+  as a shortfall until the paper says what rungs one and two would require and that nobody has built
+  them. Also TEXT.
+
+🔴 **A deadline is a constraint on how much you rework, never an argument for the current form.** If
+the author invokes it against a TEXT prong, that is the failure this section exists to catch.
+
+**Enforced** by \`../paper-pipeline/scripts/pipeline-check.mjs\` → \`ceiling-unplanned\`: a ceiling recorded
+in the scorecard whose prongs carry none of the three labels is a finding.
+
+## Record the verdict
+
+🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
+
+\`\`\`
+node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record pc-panel-review <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
+node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record pc-panel-review <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
+\`\`\`
+
+**FINDING** — \`<count>\` is the number of **consensus** must-fixes (flagged by ≥2 independent
+reviewers, not the union of everything anyone said), \`<report-path>\` is the meta-review. Add
+\`--blocking\` when the chair's decision is reject.
+**ABSTAINED** — \`blocked\`: the panel never ran because its required inputs (the persona stall
+inventory, the structural verdict) do not exist. \`no-witness\`: the panel ran and reached no
+consensus must-fix.
+
+🔴 **THIS IS THE SKILL THE DELETION OF \`PASS\` WAS WRITTEN FOR.** Five model reviewers from one
+vendor agreeing was being recorded as an acquittal — and correlated agreement between instances of
+one model is not independent evidence of anything. There is now no constructor that can say it.
+"Accept with no must-fix" is \`ABSTAINED no-witness\`: the panel produced no finding, which is a fact
+about the panel and not a fact about the paper.
+
+🔴 **The \`blocked\` row is the one that matters most here.** A blocked panel and a panel nobody
+launched read identically in prose, and on 2026-08-04 a status line said the panel was running when
+it had never been launched at all. Record the block; do not leave the check silent.
+
+Venue-fit mode records under the same skill name with the fit verdict and \`<count>\` 0 — it is one
+reviewer's spot-check, and its row should not be mistaken for the panel's decision.
+
+## Rules
+- **Independence is non-negotiable** — never let reviewers see each other's reviews before the
+  meta-review; shared context collapses the panel into one voice.
+- **Consensus > volume.** One reviewer with ten nits loses to two reviewers naming the same blocker.
+- **The artifact reviewer must actually run the code**, not read about it — that lens exists to catch
+  what prose review can't (dead links, circular self-checks, paper↔artifact number mismatches, leaks).
+- Judge against the venue's ACTUAL bar; reward fit/discussion-value for workshops.
+- Report the run honestly — if the artifact fails or a number doesn't reproduce, that IS the finding.
+- Don't fabricate the CFP or citations; fetch/verify.
+- **Review-ratchet rule — when the panel's must-fixes include an overclaim, inline-hedging is the LAST
+  resort.** Tighten → cut → move to Threats → only then hedge; and run \`tighten-paper\` after the round
+  to strip what it deposited. Full rule, with the cost of skipping it:
+  \`paper-pipeline/references/review-ratchet.md\`.
+
+## Venue-fit mode (single-lens spot-check — the merged \`venue-review-sim\`)
+When a full panel is overkill and you just want to predict **"given THIS venue's criteria, bar, and
+culture, would a real reviewer accept it, and what scores?"**, run **one** venue-fit reviewer scoring
+the specific CFP rubric — the fast fit-prediction lens (this absorbs the former standalone
+\`venue-review-sim\` skill). It answers a different question than the defect hunt: fit-to-CFP and matching
+the venue's expectation (a WIP workshop short paper vs a top-tier full paper) decide most workshop
+outcomes, often more than raw defect count.
+
+Run it:
+1. **Fetch the venue's actual review criteria** — the CFP topics, paper types, stated review criteria,
+   workshop goals, blind model. Quote the exact criteria. If none stated, use the venue-class default
+   (workshops: relevance / originality / technical quality / clarity; security venues add threat-model
+   soundness + ethics). Do NOT fabricate the CFP — fetch it; say when you fall back to the default.
+2. **Adopt the reviewer persona for THAT venue** — a PC member who knows the sub-field, cares about the
+   workshop's goals (e.g. "foster discussion", "bridge research–practice"), and calibrates to the paper
+   TYPE (a short/WIP/position paper is judged for promise and discussion value, NOT the completeness
+   demanded of a full paper — don't reject a WIP for "only 2 tools" if the venue invites WIP).
+3. **Use a separate model as the reviewer** (e.g. Fable via subagent) so the author isn't grading
+   itself. Give it the full paper text + the quoted CFP criteria.
+
+Output — fill the venue's review form:
+- **Per-criterion score** on the venue's scale (map to 1–5 if unstated), one for EACH stated criterion,
+  each with a one-line justification grounded in the paper.
+- **Overall recommendation** (Accept / Weak Accept / Borderline / Weak Reject / Reject) + **reviewer
+  confidence** (low/med/high).
+- **Fit-to-CFP**: which listed topics it hits, and whether the framing foregrounds them (a
+  trustworthiness/verification workshop wants that word in the abstract).
+- **Type-appropriateness**: is it pitched right for its track (WIP/vision/position/short vs full)? Call
+  out over-reach for a short paper or an under-sold real contribution.
+- **What the PC discussion would say** — the 2–3 meta-review sentences that decide it, as a PC chair
+  would summarize.
+- **Minimum changes to flip a borderline to accept** — the specific, venue-relevant edits (often:
+  foreground the on-topic framing, right-size claims to the track, add the one obviously-expected
+  citation) — NOT a full defect list.
+- **Predicted outcome + probability**, calibrated to the venue's selectivity and edition (first-edition
+  workshops are more welcoming; established ones more competitive).
+
+Rules: judge against the venue's ACTUAL bar and goals, not an abstract ideal; reward fit and
+discussion-value for workshops, reserve full-paper rigor for full-paper tracks; be honest about
+reject-risk without rubber-stamping. For the real decision, escalate to the full panel below.
+
+## Compose with
+- \`paper-adversarial-review\` (defect hunt) as an *input* — this skill is the layer above it (and above
+  its own Venue-fit mode). Run the full panel LAST, after a hardening pass, as the final pre-submission
+  gate.
+- Append each panel's result to the paper's review ledger
+  (\`papers/research/<date>-fable-rereview-<venue>.md\`) so accept-probability progression is tracked
+  across rounds.
+
+## The reproduce loop (why this beats a prose review)
+This is "double-blind review as a real venue does it, WITH reproduction." The artifact-runner reviewer
+is the difference-maker on both runs so far: it doesn't judge the paper's numbers, it re-derives them.
+Run the panel, apply the consensus fixes, then **re-run the panel** (same lenses, told what changed) to
+confirm the fixes landed and nothing regressed — the artifact-runner re-executes every harness each
+round. Track the accept-probability progression in the review ledger. Stop when the panel converges to
+accept and the artifact reproduces clean; don't loop past one confirming round.
+
+## Provenance (two papers, battle-tested)
+- **AgenticDev 2026** (2026-07-12): 3 lenses (stats / practitioner / artifact-runner) + chair. Caught
+  what two prior single-lens rounds missed — a paper↔artifact mismatch ("raw 140-run data" vs shipped
+  per-arm aggregates) and a mislabeled "paired" test, both flagged by ≥2 reviewers. Round→confirm:
+  ~85%→90%.
+- **AISec 2026 @ CCS** (2026-07-13): same shape at a harder (top-tier security) bar. The artifact-runner
+  ran all four harnesses AND stress-tested the release gate (planted a leak, confirmed it caught it);
+  the ethics reviewer caught the release-vs-paper anonymization contradiction (the released artifact
+  named 46 maintainers) — the single highest reject-vector, invisible to a paper-only read. After the
+  fixes + a confirm round, all three moved to Accept (~87–88%, from Weak-Accept/conditional/leak-risk).
+  Lesson: the two things that most move a security paper — an ethics/disclosure contradiction and a
+  reproduction/anonymization leak — live in the ARTIFACT, so the artifact-runner + an ethics lens are
+  non-optional at security venues.`,
+});

package/skills/pc-panel-review/pc-panel-review.eval.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+/**
+ * pc-panel-review — the PAID tier: does this skill's description actually fire?
+ *
+ * COLOCATED ON PURPOSE (vigiles decides coverage by placement as of 2026-08-11).
+ * The prompts live in `.claude/lib/skill-trigger-cases.mjs` so all 21 cases
+ * are reviewed as one table where collisions between siblings are visible;
+ * copying them here would recreate the drift that rule exists to prevent.
+ *
+ * Measures recall (fires on its own territory) AND precision (stays quiet on a
+ * colliding sibling's territory), against the REAL `.claude` harness so the skill
+ * competes with every other installed description — an isolated run overstates
+ * recall and understates false positives.
+ *
+ * Costs money; not CI.
+ *   node .claude/skills/pc-panel-review/pc-panel-review.eval.mjs [trials]
+ */
+import { runSkillTriggerEval } from "../../lib/skill-eval-kit.mjs";
+
+await runSkillTriggerEval("pc-panel-review");

package/skills/pc-panel-review/pc-panel-review.harness.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+/**
+ * pc-panel-review — the free, deterministic tier. No model, no network.
+ *
+ * COLOCATED ON PURPOSE. vigiles decides coverage by PLACEMENT as of 2026-08-11:
+ * a test that merely names a surface no longer counts, because that tier was
+ * crediting surfaces nothing touched. So each skill needs a file inside its own
+ * directory — this one.
+ *
+ * The assertions live in `.claude/lib/skill-checks.mjs` and are CALLED here with
+ * this skill's name. They are not copied: 22 copies of the same checks is the drift that
+ * module exists to avoid. (Until 2026-08-11 this was an env-var side channel into a
+ * 614-line file named after no surface; it is a function call now.)
+ *
+ * What this proves: this skill's frontmatter parses as strict YAML, its declared
+ * tool contract is sane, its pipeline wiring points at scripts that exist, and it
+ * announces/records under ITS OWN identity rather than a sibling's.
+ *
+ * What it does NOT prove: that the skill fires, or that its guidance produces a
+ * good result. Those need a real model — see `pc-panel-review.eval.mjs`.
+ */
+import { checkSkill } from "../../lib/skill-checks.mjs";
+
+await checkSkill("pc-panel-review");