paperlint 3.1.3 → 4.0.0

package/skills/cold-read-diff/SKILL.md

@@ -5,20 +5,11 @@ context: fork
 allowed-tools: [Bash, Read, Agent]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:596fbd7e2eb85252 compiled from skills/cold-read-diff/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:e45391841e689aa9 compiled from skills/cold-read-diff/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # cold-read-diff — the reader who cannot fake understanding
 
-## Run me
 
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs cold-read-diff <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 failure this exists for
 
@@ -120,25 +111,6 @@ findings:
 ---
 ```
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record cold-read-diff <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record cold-read-diff <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-**FINDING** — `<count>` is the number of changed sentences the cold reader could not restate (every
-`CANNOT PARSE` counts), `<report-path>` is the `reviews/*cold-read*.md` file.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: every changed sentence came back restated correctly.
-`input-missing`: the diff held no prose to read.
-
-🔴 These two are different answers and the difference is the whole reason the vocabulary is closed:
-one says a reader read it and found nothing, the other says there was nothing to hand a reader.
-Prose collapses them and the old `PASS`/`ABSENT` pair only half-separated them, because `PASS` also
-got recorded when nobody had run a reader at all. There is no `PASS` now; the reason is the answer.
-
 ## Rules
 
 - 🔴 **No context in the prompt. Ever.** Not the title, not the abstract, not "this is a paper about
@@ -158,12 +130,6 @@ got recorded when nobody had run a reader at all. There is no `PASS` now; the re
 - **Run it on your own fixes too.** The author is the least qualified judge of whether his repair
   reads, and that is exactly when he feels most certain.
 
-## Enforcement
-
-`pipeline-check.mjs` raises `stale-cold-read` when the newest `reviews/*cold-read*.md` is older than
-the paper source, and `no-cold-read` when none exists. The date comparison is the whole mechanism:
-a cold read that predates the current text describes prose that no longer exists.
-
 ## Compose with
 
 - `grade-paper-writing` — the batch readability gate; this is its continuous counterpart. That one

package/skills/cold-read-diff/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -14,16 +14,7 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   body: `
 # cold-read-diff — the reader who cannot fake understanding
 
-## Run me
 
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs cold-read-diff <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 failure this exists for
 
@@ -125,25 +116,6 @@ findings:
 ---
 \`\`\`
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record cold-read-diff <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record cold-read-diff <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-**FINDING** — \`<count>\` is the number of changed sentences the cold reader could not restate (every
-\`CANNOT PARSE\` counts), \`<report-path>\` is the \`reviews/*cold-read*.md\` file.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: every changed sentence came back restated correctly.
-\`input-missing\`: the diff held no prose to read.
-
-🔴 These two are different answers and the difference is the whole reason the vocabulary is closed:
-one says a reader read it and found nothing, the other says there was nothing to hand a reader.
-Prose collapses them and the old \`PASS\`/\`ABSENT\` pair only half-separated them, because \`PASS\` also
-got recorded when nobody had run a reader at all. There is no \`PASS\` now; the reason is the answer.
-
 ## Rules
 
 - 🔴 **No context in the prompt. Ever.** Not the title, not the abstract, not "this is a paper about
@@ -163,12 +135,6 @@ got recorded when nobody had run a reader at all. There is no \`PASS\` now; the
 - **Run it on your own fixes too.** The author is the least qualified judge of whether his repair
   reads, and that is exactly when he feels most certain.
 
-## Enforcement
-
-\`pipeline-check.mjs\` raises \`stale-cold-read\` when the newest \`reviews/*cold-read*.md\` is older than
-the paper source, and \`no-cold-read\` when none exists. The date comparison is the whole mechanism:
-a cold read that predates the current text describes prose that no longer exists.
-
 ## Compose with
 
 - \`grade-paper-writing\` — the batch readability gate; this is its continuous counterpart. That one

package/skills/draft-paper/SKILL.md

@@ -1,24 +1,13 @@
 ---
 name: draft-paper
 description: Use when the numbers exist and it's time to WRITE the paper — "draft the paper", "turn these findings into a submission", "write the abstract/intro/threats". Gives the section skeleton of a measurement/benchmark paper plus what gets it accepted AND cited — precise claim-sizing (including an explicit "what we do NOT claim"), a construct-validity frame, an honest threats-to-validity section that turns limitations in your favor, and one memorable stat that travels. Encodes the two theses that carried real measurement papers ("measuring the wrong number", "safety theater"). NOT for grading finished prose (grade-paper-writing) or structural editing (tighten-paper) — this is the generative counterpart. Compose with build-benchmark (numbers), grade-paper-writing (prose QA), render-paper, verify-citations, then the review skills.
-allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Agent, Skill, Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs:*), Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs:*)]
+allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Agent, Skill]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:1b6a7bdc0ea402ec compiled from skills/draft-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:46bb85bfaa45e595 compiled from skills/draft-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # draft-paper — prose that survives review and gets cited
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs draft-paper <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.
-
 A measurement paper lives or dies on two things reviewers actually reward: a **reusable method/norm**
 they can apply to the next system, and **claim-sizing so precise it can't be attacked**. Numbers alone
 are a blog post. This skill turns `build-benchmark`'s output into that kind of draft.
@@ -101,34 +90,6 @@ For papers they duplicate — and are superseded by — `grade-paper-writing` +
 pass (the blog skills lack the persona fix, so they under-fire on paper prose). Never route paper
 prose QA to them.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record draft-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record draft-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-This skill generates rather than judges, so what it records is about the run, not about the paper.
-
-**FINDING** — it declined to draft because a required input was missing: no numbers from
-`build-benchmark`, or an empty `frame` paragraph from `argument-arc`. `--blocking`, always, because
-drafting past it produces prose about numbers that do not exist.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: sections were written and the generator has nothing to report about
-the paper. Put the drafted sections in the note; they are the deliverable, not evidence of a defect.
-
-🔴 **Design smell, stated plainly: this gate will almost always record an abstention**, and
-`status.mjs` will flag it as one that has never returned a finding. Leave the flag standing — it is
-telling the truth. A generator is not a gate, and the only honest negative it can produce is the
-refusal above. If a run ever ends with prose written from numbers that do not exist, that is a
-`FINDING --blocking` and must be recorded as one rather than quietly upgraded.
-
-🔴 Deleting `PASS` did not fix this skill and was never going to: the old vocabulary let it write
-down "I produced sections" as though that were an answer about the manuscript, and the new one
-simply refuses to. The generator is still not a gate. `draft-paper/population-map` — a real check —
-is the row that can say no about this skill's output.
-
 ## Compose with
 - **`build-benchmark`** — its numbers/CIs are the Results section's raw material; never hand-type a
   number that isn't in its output (that's how paper↔artifact mismatches get born).

package/skills/draft-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -10,31 +10,10 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   name: "draft-paper",
   description:
     'Use when the numbers exist and it\'s time to WRITE the paper — "draft the paper", "turn these findings into a submission", "write the abstract/intro/threats". Gives the section skeleton of a measurement/benchmark paper plus what gets it accepted AND cited — precise claim-sizing (including an explicit "what we do NOT claim"), a construct-validity frame, an honest threats-to-validity section that turns limitations in your favor, and one memorable stat that travels. Encodes the two theses that carried real measurement papers ("measuring the wrong number", "safety theater"). NOT for grading finished prose (grade-paper-writing) or structural editing (tighten-paper) — this is the generative counterpart. Compose with build-benchmark (numbers), grade-paper-writing (prose QA), render-paper, verify-citations, then the review skills.',
-  tools: [
-    "Read",
-    "Write",
-    "Edit",
-    "Grep",
-    "Glob",
-    "Agent",
-    "Skill",
-    "Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs:*)",
-    "Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs:*)",
-  ],
+  tools: ["Read", "Write", "Edit", "Grep", "Glob", "Agent", "Skill"],
   body: `
 # draft-paper — prose that survives review and gets cited
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs draft-paper <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.
-
 A measurement paper lives or dies on two things reviewers actually reward: a **reusable method/norm**
 they can apply to the next system, and **claim-sizing so precise it can't be attacked**. Numbers alone
 are a blog post. This skill turns \`build-benchmark\`'s output into that kind of draft.
@@ -117,34 +96,6 @@ For papers they duplicate — and are superseded by — \`grade-paper-writing\`
 pass (the blog skills lack the persona fix, so they under-fire on paper prose). Never route paper
 prose QA to them.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record draft-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record draft-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-This skill generates rather than judges, so what it records is about the run, not about the paper.
-
-**FINDING** — it declined to draft because a required input was missing: no numbers from
-\`build-benchmark\`, or an empty \`frame\` paragraph from \`argument-arc\`. \`--blocking\`, always, because
-drafting past it produces prose about numbers that do not exist.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: sections were written and the generator has nothing to report about
-the paper. Put the drafted sections in the note; they are the deliverable, not evidence of a defect.
-
-🔴 **Design smell, stated plainly: this gate will almost always record an abstention**, and
-\`status.mjs\` will flag it as one that has never returned a finding. Leave the flag standing — it is
-telling the truth. A generator is not a gate, and the only honest negative it can produce is the
-refusal above. If a run ever ends with prose written from numbers that do not exist, that is a
-\`FINDING --blocking\` and must be recorded as one rather than quietly upgraded.
-
-🔴 Deleting \`PASS\` did not fix this skill and was never going to: the old vocabulary let it write
-down "I produced sections" as though that were an answer about the manuscript, and the new one
-simply refuses to. The generator is still not a gate. \`draft-paper/population-map\` — a real check —
-is the row that can say no about this skill's output.
-
 ## Compose with
 - **\`build-benchmark\`** — its numbers/CIs are the Results section's raw material; never hand-type a
   number that isn't in its output (that's how paper↔artifact mismatches get born).

package/skills/extend-paper/SKILL.md

@@ -1,24 +1,13 @@
 ---
 name: extend-paper
 description: Turn an accepted workshop / short paper into a second, stronger publication at a higher-prestige indexed venue — the "body of work" a strong dossier needs, not a one-hit paper. Covers the ≥30% new-material rule, the never-dual-submit rule, what genuinely counts as new content, and picking + timelining the upgrade venue. Use after a paper is accepted and you want the follow-on publication. Compose with find-venue, plan-paper-timeline, camera-ready, research-ideate.
-allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, Skill, Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs:*), Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs:*)]
+allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, Skill]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:436bb3586d84a654 compiled from skills/extend-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:6310b1e7748e10de compiled from skills/extend-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # extend-paper — workshop/short paper → a second, stronger publication
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs extend-paper <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.
-
 One accepted paper is a data point; two related papers climbing in prestige is a **trajectory**, and
 "sustained acclaim" is what a body-of-work review actually rewards. Workshop→conference and
 conference→journal extensions are a standard, expected move — venues invite them. The catch: an
@@ -66,26 +55,6 @@ submissions**. A burst of papers clustered right before an external filing deadl
 manufactured, not sustained — a documented reason for refusal, not a stylistic worry. Aim the extension to land a few months after the first paper's
 acceptance so the record shows steady output over time, one ORCID tying every version together.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record extend-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record extend-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-**FINDING** — `<count>` open items before the extension is legitimate; `<report-path>` is the plan.
-Add `--blocking` when the ≥30% cannot honestly be pointed at, which sends the work back to
-`research-ideate`.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: a legitimate extension is scoped — ≥30% genuinely new material, one
-named venue, no dual submission — and nothing is open. `blocked`: there is no accepted base paper
-to extend.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, and here that matters more than anywhere: the tempting move at this moment
-is to resubmit the same paper with a new title, and a stored "legitimate" would have been exactly
-the paperwork for it. The blocking finding is what the pipeline is watching for; nothing else is.
-
 ## Compose with
 - **find-venue** — choose the higher-prestige indexed target and confirm it welcomes extensions.
 - **plan-paper-timeline** — schedule the new experiments + write-up against the target deadline.

package/skills/extend-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -10,31 +10,10 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   name: "extend-paper",
   description:
     'Turn an accepted workshop / short paper into a second, stronger publication at a higher-prestige indexed venue — the "body of work" a strong dossier needs, not a one-hit paper. Covers the ≥30% new-material rule, the never-dual-submit rule, what genuinely counts as new content, and picking + timelining the upgrade venue. Use after a paper is accepted and you want the follow-on publication. Compose with find-venue, plan-paper-timeline, camera-ready, research-ideate.',
-  tools: [
-    "Read",
-    "Write",
-    "Grep",
-    "Glob",
-    "WebSearch",
-    "WebFetch",
-    "Skill",
-    "Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs:*)",
-    "Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs:*)",
-  ],
+  tools: ["Read", "Write", "Grep", "Glob", "WebSearch", "WebFetch", "Skill"],
   body: `
 # extend-paper — workshop/short paper → a second, stronger publication
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs extend-paper <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.
-
 One accepted paper is a data point; two related papers climbing in prestige is a **trajectory**, and
 "sustained acclaim" is what a body-of-work review actually rewards. Workshop→conference and
 conference→journal extensions are a standard, expected move — venues invite them. The catch: an
@@ -82,26 +61,6 @@ submissions**. A burst of papers clustered right before an external filing deadl
 manufactured, not sustained — a documented reason for refusal, not a stylistic worry. Aim the extension to land a few months after the first paper's
 acceptance so the record shows steady output over time, one ORCID tying every version together.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record extend-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record extend-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-**FINDING** — \`<count>\` open items before the extension is legitimate; \`<report-path>\` is the plan.
-Add \`--blocking\` when the ≥30% cannot honestly be pointed at, which sends the work back to
-\`research-ideate\`.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: a legitimate extension is scoped — ≥30% genuinely new material, one
-named venue, no dual submission — and nothing is open. \`blocked\`: there is no accepted base paper
-to extend.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, and here that matters more than anywhere: the tempting move at this moment
-is to resubmit the same paper with a new title, and a stored "legitimate" would have been exactly
-the paperwork for it. The blocking finding is what the pipeline is watching for; nothing else is.
-
 ## Compose with
 - **find-venue** — choose the higher-prestige indexed target and confirm it welcomes extensions.
 - **plan-paper-timeline** — schedule the new experiments + write-up against the target deadline.

package/skills/find-venue/SKILL.md

@@ -1,28 +1,13 @@
 ---
 name: find-venue
 description: "Discover and rank real venues for a given paper, scored by authorship credit not just prestige. Fetch candidate CFPs (WebSearch/WebFetch), capture deadline / page limit / paper-type fit / indexing (ACM DL / IEEE Xplore / archival vs non-archival) / double-blind / remote-attendance / selectivity, then rank by credit-weight (peer-reviewed + indexed + parent-venue prestige) × topic fit × accept-probability × deadline feasibility × remote-friendliness. Emit a comparison table and a keep/switch recommendation. Encodes: workshop newness does NOT hurt authorship; non-archival workshops rank LOW; the prestige move is to EXTEND the accepted paper later, not hold out. Compose with research-ideate (upstream), plan-paper-timeline, the submit-paper venue data cards (submit-paper/references/venues/<venue>.md), and extend-paper."
-allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent, Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs:*), Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs:*)]
+allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:5efdcc0e1b178c1a compiled from skills/find-venue/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:bfda3e840d81d95d compiled from skills/find-venue/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # find-venue — rank real venues by what earns the credit, then keep or switch
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs find-venue <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 `<dir>` argument is **optional in spirit**: this skill can run before a paper directory exists, so
-pass whichever directory the work lives in, or `.`. The ledger row is written either way, and a plain
-dot is more honest than an invented path.
-
 Takes a paper (or the candidate venue *types* from `research-ideate`) and finds the best real place to
 submit it. "Best" here means **best for the publication record**, which is not the same as most prestigious —
 an indexed workshop you can actually hit beats a top conference whose deadline already closed. This
@@ -82,27 +67,6 @@ rank = credit-weight × topic-fit × accept-probability × deadline-feasibility
    already has a target) an explicit **keep** or **switch** verdict against it. Note the intended
    `extend-paper` upgrade target for later.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record find-venue <dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record find-venue <dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS.** A shortlist is a set of findings about the world, not a certificate that
-the venue question is settled.
-
-**FINDING** — the sweep produced a ranked shortlist with an explicit keep/switch call; `<count>` is
-the number of candidates ranked and `<report-path>` the comparison table. Add `--blocking` when
-nothing open clears the peer-reviewed + indexed gate — a real answer, and not an empty run.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: CFPs were read and no candidate could be ranked either way.
-`input-missing`: there is no paper description to match venues against.
-
-Record the whole table's path, not just the winner. The next sweep starts from the candidates that were
-dropped and why, and a verdict with no table behind it cannot be re-checked when a deadline moves.
-
 ## Rules
 - Fetch every CFP fact from the real page; never invent a deadline, page limit, or indexing status.
 - Indexed + peer-reviewed is a gate, not a tiebreaker — a non-archival venue cannot win on charm.

package/skills/find-venue/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -10,35 +10,10 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   name: "find-venue",
   description:
     "Discover and rank real venues for a given paper, scored by authorship credit not just prestige. Fetch candidate CFPs (WebSearch/WebFetch), capture deadline / page limit / paper-type fit / indexing (ACM DL / IEEE Xplore / archival vs non-archival) / double-blind / remote-attendance / selectivity, then rank by credit-weight (peer-reviewed + indexed + parent-venue prestige) × topic fit × accept-probability × deadline feasibility × remote-friendliness. Emit a comparison table and a keep/switch recommendation. Encodes: workshop newness does NOT hurt authorship; non-archival workshops rank LOW; the prestige move is to EXTEND the accepted paper later, not hold out. Compose with research-ideate (upstream), plan-paper-timeline, the submit-paper venue data cards (submit-paper/references/venues/<venue>.md), and extend-paper.",
-  tools: [
-    "Read",
-    "Write",
-    "Grep",
-    "Glob",
-    "WebSearch",
-    "WebFetch",
-    "Agent",
-    "Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs:*)",
-    "Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs:*)",
-  ],
+  tools: ["Read", "Write", "Grep", "Glob", "WebSearch", "WebFetch", "Agent"],
   body: `
 # find-venue — rank real venues by what earns the credit, then keep or switch
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs find-venue <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 \`<dir>\` argument is **optional in spirit**: this skill can run before a paper directory exists, so
-pass whichever directory the work lives in, or \`.\`. The ledger row is written either way, and a plain
-dot is more honest than an invented path.
-
 Takes a paper (or the candidate venue *types* from \`research-ideate\`) and finds the best real place to
 submit it. "Best" here means **best for the publication record**, which is not the same as most prestigious —
 an indexed workshop you can actually hit beats a top conference whose deadline already closed. This
@@ -98,27 +73,6 @@ rank = credit-weight × topic-fit × accept-probability × deadline-feasibility
    already has a target) an explicit **keep** or **switch** verdict against it. Note the intended
    \`extend-paper\` upgrade target for later.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record find-venue <dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record find-venue <dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS.** A shortlist is a set of findings about the world, not a certificate that
-the venue question is settled.
-
-**FINDING** — the sweep produced a ranked shortlist with an explicit keep/switch call; \`<count>\` is
-the number of candidates ranked and \`<report-path>\` the comparison table. Add \`--blocking\` when
-nothing open clears the peer-reviewed + indexed gate — a real answer, and not an empty run.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: CFPs were read and no candidate could be ranked either way.
-\`input-missing\`: there is no paper description to match venues against.
-
-Record the whole table's path, not just the winner. The next sweep starts from the candidates that were
-dropped and why, and a verdict with no table behind it cannot be re-checked when a deadline moves.
-
 ## Rules
 - Fetch every CFP fact from the real page; never invent a deadline, page limit, or indexing status.
 - Indexed + peer-reviewed is a gate, not a tiebreaker — a non-archival venue cannot win on charm.

package/skills/grade-paper-writing/SKILL.md

@@ -1,24 +1,13 @@
 ---
 name: grade-paper-writing
 description: Use when asking "does this paper read well?" / "is the writing any good?" / "it reads like a wall of text and jargon" / "grade the writing" on a draft. Grades WRITING CRAFT only — nine dimensions 1–5 (Title, Abstract, Intro architecture, Structure, Prose clarity, Jargon discipline, Landing-the-point, Figure economy, Honesty-without-hedge-stacking) against how the best-written papers read (Peyton Jones, McEnerney, Gopen & Swan; exemplars Trusting Trust, Carlini, Greshake), naming the offending sentence and the fix for each. Runs the PERSONA cold-read stall pass (a committed non-academic persona subagent, per-section) whose stall inventory — not the rubric number — is the readability gate other skills consume (pc-panel-review, paper-adversarial-review, harden-paper). Defaults to a blind multi-grader panel; after fixes, mandates the claims-preservation diff (row `claims`). NOT a content/defect review (paper-adversarial-review / pc-panel-review), NOT a structural cut plan (tighten-paper — run that first on a bloated draft), NOT venue-bar content strength (study-accepted-papers). Compose with harden-paper (which calls it), draft-paper (generative counterpart), render-paper.
-allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Agent, Skill, Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs:*), Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs:*)]
+allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Agent, Skill]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:c0907d5c98e2c831 compiled from skills/grade-paper-writing/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:c5d998b7471000fc compiled from skills/grade-paper-writing/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # grade-paper-writing — grade how the paper READS, then fix it sentence by sentence
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs grade-paper-writing <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 review skills hunt scientific defects; `study-accepted-papers` checks whether the contribution clears
 the venue's bar. Neither tells you the paper is a slog to read. This skill does exactly that: it grades
 the **writing craft** against how the best-written papers actually read, and turns each low score into a
@@ -212,8 +201,7 @@ is what happened.
    side effect.
 
 7. 🔴 **Put `WORST-SECTION: <section>` on the FIRST LINE of the report.** Machine-readable, one
-   section, lowercase, no decoration. `pipeline-check.mjs` reads the last four reports and raises
-   `repeat-finding` when the same section is worst twice running. This exists because the abstract
+   section, lowercase, no decoration, so the next round can compare it with the last report. This exists because the abstract
    was named worst **five consecutive times**, was faithfully recorded in the scorecard all five
    times, and was never once the next task. A review loop that only appends findings converges on a
    paper whose defects are all thoroughly documented and none of them fixed. **Naming the worst
@@ -274,29 +262,6 @@ findings:
 ---
 ```
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record grade-paper-writing <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record grade-paper-writing <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-**FINDING** — `<count>` is the number of entries in the PERSONA stall inventory, and `<report-path>`
-is that inventory. Add `--blocking` when a dimension scored 1–2, or stall density is over its cap.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: the inventory came back empty. `blocked`: no persona reader was run,
-so there is no inventory — which is not an empty inventory and must never be filed as one.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, and the distinction the two abstentions draw is the one that was being
-lost: "a reader stalled nowhere" and "nobody read it" produced the same word.
-
-🔴 **Record the stall count, never the rubric number.** The inventory is what `pc-panel-review`,
-`paper-adversarial-review` and `harden-paper` consume; a 44/60 in the ledger would let a paper whose
-readability gate is failing look clean to every skill downstream.
-
-`prose-lint.mjs` files separately as `grade-paper-writing/prose-lint`. One check, one row.
-
 ## Rules
 - Grade **writing, not science.** A correct paper can still score a 2 here; say so. Don't drift into
   content/defect review — that's `paper-adversarial-review` / `pc-panel-review`.

package/skills/grade-paper-writing/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -10,31 +10,10 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   name: "grade-paper-writing",
   description:
     'Use when asking "does this paper read well?" / "is the writing any good?" / "it reads like a wall of text and jargon" / "grade the writing" on a draft. Grades WRITING CRAFT only — nine dimensions 1–5 (Title, Abstract, Intro architecture, Structure, Prose clarity, Jargon discipline, Landing-the-point, Figure economy, Honesty-without-hedge-stacking) against how the best-written papers read (Peyton Jones, McEnerney, Gopen & Swan; exemplars Trusting Trust, Carlini, Greshake), naming the offending sentence and the fix for each. Runs the PERSONA cold-read stall pass (a committed non-academic persona subagent, per-section) whose stall inventory — not the rubric number — is the readability gate other skills consume (pc-panel-review, paper-adversarial-review, harden-paper). Defaults to a blind multi-grader panel; after fixes, mandates the claims-preservation diff (row `claims`). NOT a content/defect review (paper-adversarial-review / pc-panel-review), NOT a structural cut plan (tighten-paper — run that first on a bloated draft), NOT venue-bar content strength (study-accepted-papers). Compose with harden-paper (which calls it), draft-paper (generative counterpart), render-paper.',
-  tools: [
-    "Read",
-    "Write",
-    "Edit",
-    "Grep",
-    "Glob",
-    "Agent",
-    "Skill",
-    "Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs:*)",
-    "Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs:*)",
-  ],
+  tools: ["Read", "Write", "Edit", "Grep", "Glob", "Agent", "Skill"],
   body: `
 # grade-paper-writing — grade how the paper READS, then fix it sentence by sentence
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs grade-paper-writing <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 review skills hunt scientific defects; \`study-accepted-papers\` checks whether the contribution clears
 the venue's bar. Neither tells you the paper is a slog to read. This skill does exactly that: it grades
 the **writing craft** against how the best-written papers actually read, and turns each low score into a
@@ -228,8 +207,7 @@ is what happened.
    side effect.
 
 7. 🔴 **Put \`WORST-SECTION: <section>\` on the FIRST LINE of the report.** Machine-readable, one
-   section, lowercase, no decoration. \`pipeline-check.mjs\` reads the last four reports and raises
-   \`repeat-finding\` when the same section is worst twice running. This exists because the abstract
+   section, lowercase, no decoration, so the next round can compare it with the last report. This exists because the abstract
    was named worst **five consecutive times**, was faithfully recorded in the scorecard all five
    times, and was never once the next task. A review loop that only appends findings converges on a
    paper whose defects are all thoroughly documented and none of them fixed. **Naming the worst
@@ -290,29 +268,6 @@ findings:
 ---
 \`\`\`
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record grade-paper-writing <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record grade-paper-writing <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-**FINDING** — \`<count>\` is the number of entries in the PERSONA stall inventory, and \`<report-path>\`
-is that inventory. Add \`--blocking\` when a dimension scored 1–2, or stall density is over its cap.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: the inventory came back empty. \`blocked\`: no persona reader was run,
-so there is no inventory — which is not an empty inventory and must never be filed as one.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, and the distinction the two abstentions draw is the one that was being
-lost: "a reader stalled nowhere" and "nobody read it" produced the same word.
-
-🔴 **Record the stall count, never the rubric number.** The inventory is what \`pc-panel-review\`,
-\`paper-adversarial-review\` and \`harden-paper\` consume; a 44/60 in the ledger would let a paper whose
-readability gate is failing look clean to every skill downstream.
-
-\`prose-lint.mjs\` files separately as \`grade-paper-writing/prose-lint\`. One check, one row.
-
 ## Rules
 - Grade **writing, not science.** A correct paper can still score a 2 here; say so. Don't drift into
   content/defect review — that's \`paper-adversarial-review\` / \`pc-panel-review\`.

package/skills/grade-paper-writing/prose-lint.mjs

@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ import {
   stripFences,
   requireMarkdown,
   stripFrontmatter,
-} from "../../lib/markdown.mjs";
+} from "#lib/markdown";
 
 // Markup is parsed with a PARSER (`CLAUDE.md`, 2026-08-11). We fail rather than degrade, even
 // though this file is advisory: without a parser the paper's body would collapse to empty, and from
@@ -692,9 +692,8 @@ for (const f of args.filter((a) => !a.startsWith("--"))) {
     // `hedge-density`, `discourse-subject`, `undefined-coinage`.
     if (lines.length) {
       flagged += lines.length;
-      // The header STATES the count. run-mechanical.mjs prefers a stated "— N finding(s)" over
-      // counting output lines, and without it recorded header + findings + footer: one flagged
-      // caption became three findings in the ledger.
+      // The header STATES the count, so a caller need not count output lines — header and footer
+      // are not findings.
       console.error(
         `✍️  prose-lint — ${f.split("/").pop()} — ${lines.length} finding(s):`,
       );