paperlint 3.2.0 → 4.0.0

package/skills/analyze-sibling-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -24,20 +24,6 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   body: `
 # analyze-sibling-paper — settle "isn't this just X?" before a reviewer does
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs analyze-sibling-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.
-
-The \`<paper-dir>\` argument is **your** paper, not the sibling — the row belongs to the paper being
-defended. The sibling is named by \`<report-path>\` when the verdict is recorded.
-
 When a paper close to yours surfaces, the wrong move is to cite it from its abstract and move on — that
 leaves a scoop risk you can't see and a reviewer can. This skill reads the *actual* competitor, judges
 whether your contribution genuinely differs, and produces a saved analysis with concrete action points
@@ -129,30 +115,6 @@ and the action points (with the exact clause text to add/replace). Per the save-
 analysis that lives only in a chat is lost the moment the session ends — and it's exactly what you'll need
 again at rebuttal. **A close sibling with no file in \`<paper-dir>/siblings/\` is an unfinished analysis.**
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record analyze-sibling-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record analyze-sibling-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-**FINDING** — \`<count>\` is the number of action points the card produced (positioning clauses plus
-*MUST CITE* entries), \`<report-path>\` is the saved card, which names the sibling. Add \`--blocking\`
-for a genuine scoop, which the skill already treats as an escalation rather than a clause.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: the sibling was read in full and the delta needs no text to change.
-\`blocked\`: the sibling's full text could not be obtained, so only its abstract was seen — which is
-explicitly not an analysis and must never be recorded as one.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS.** "The delta is real" read identically whether the sibling had been read
-whole or skimmed, and this skill's own first rule is that an abstract-only delta is not a verdict.
-\`no-witness\` and \`blocked\` now say which happened.
-
-One row per sibling analysed, filed under its own \`--check=<sibling-slug>\`; several finding rows
-against one paper is the normal shape here, not a check that keeps failing. Before 2026-08-10 they
-would have overwritten one another.
-
 ## Rules
 - **Read the paper, not the abstract.** An abstract-only "delta" is not a verdict — and the card must
   say so: \`read: abstract\` in its frontmatter, and which parts in its \`**Read:**\` line.

package/skills/argument-arc/SKILL.md

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 ---
 name: argument-arc
 description: Build or repair the paper's argument architecture — the one-sentence-per-section outline, the bottom-up inevitability pass, and the name/number budget. Run it when the reader says the paper throws ideas at them, when a structural objection repeats, or before any large rewrite. Not a prose or length skill.
-allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Grep, Glob, 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, Agent]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:05a1eaa79bb596d5 compiled from skills/argument-arc/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:66be3161e5bde916 compiled from skills/argument-arc/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # argument-arc — does the paper carry the reader to one conclusion
 
@@ -14,17 +14,6 @@ allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Grep, Glob, Agent, Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-p
 > whether the argument exists. Run it *before* them — cutting words inside a broken arc is how a
 > session burns a day and ships the same paper.
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs argument-arc <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 it exists to catch has a signature: every paragraph is defensible, every number is real,
 and the reader still finishes the section unable to say what it was for. That is not a prose problem
 and no amount of rewriting sentences fixes it.
@@ -48,7 +37,6 @@ came out — which is how a run gets thrown away. That is not hypothetical: it w
 data is collected costs the data. Costs a paragraph; saves a study.**
 
 `build-benchmark` reads this paragraph before designing, and refuses to proceed if `frame` is empty.
-`pipeline-check.mjs` reports a study that ran with no stated claim.
 
 *Added 2026-08-03 alongside the replacement of the numbered stage list — this skill previously existed
 only as a repair, which meant nobody stated the claim while stating it was still cheap.*
@@ -125,28 +113,6 @@ most needs help. This skill does:
   the calendar against it is a category error.
 - **Rebuild produces a new outline through steps 1–4 above, and it too gets shown before editing.**
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record argument-arc <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record argument-arc <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS.** "The arc carries the reader" is not a value this pass can write down; it is
-what a reader may conclude from the absence of findings, and the concluding is theirs.
-
-**FINDING** — the arc is broken; `<count>` is the number of sections the new outline moves, merges
-or deletes, and `<report-path>` is that outline. Add `--blocking` when there is no conclusion
-sentence to build an arc from: that refusal is a finding about the draft, not an aborted run, and
-`<report-path>` is the one-line statement of what is missing.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: the outline was read end to end and nothing moved. `blocked`: there
-was no outline to read at all.
-
-An `ABSTAINED no-witness` on a draft the author has twice called a pile is a missed finding, and
-`status.mjs` will start asking about a check that has only ever abstained.
-
 ## Rules
 
 - **The arc is judged on the outline, never on the draft.** If you find yourself rereading paragraphs

package/skills/argument-arc/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -10,15 +10,7 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   name: "argument-arc",
   description:
     "Build or repair the paper's argument architecture — the one-sentence-per-section outline, the bottom-up inevitability pass, and the name/number budget. Run it when the reader says the paper throws ideas at them, when a structural objection repeats, or before any large rewrite. Not a prose or length skill.",
-  tools: [
-    "Read",
-    "Write",
-    "Grep",
-    "Glob",
-    "Agent",
-    "Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs:*)",
-    "Bash(node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs:*)",
-  ],
+  tools: ["Read", "Write", "Grep", "Glob", "Agent"],
   body: `
 # argument-arc — does the paper carry the reader to one conclusion
 
@@ -28,17 +20,6 @@ export default experimental_skill({
 > whether the argument exists. Run it *before* them — cutting words inside a broken arc is how a
 > session burns a day and ships the same paper.
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs argument-arc <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 it exists to catch has a signature: every paragraph is defensible, every number is real,
 and the reader still finishes the section unable to say what it was for. That is not a prose problem
 and no amount of rewriting sentences fixes it.
@@ -62,7 +43,6 @@ came out — which is how a run gets thrown away. That is not hypothetical: it w
 data is collected costs the data. Costs a paragraph; saves a study.**
 
 \`build-benchmark\` reads this paragraph before designing, and refuses to proceed if \`frame\` is empty.
-\`pipeline-check.mjs\` reports a study that ran with no stated claim.
 
 *Added 2026-08-03 alongside the replacement of the numbered stage list — this skill previously existed
 only as a repair, which meant nobody stated the claim while stating it was still cheap.*
@@ -139,28 +119,6 @@ most needs help. This skill does:
   the calendar against it is a category error.
 - **Rebuild produces a new outline through steps 1–4 above, and it too gets shown before editing.**
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record argument-arc <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record argument-arc <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS.** "The arc carries the reader" is not a value this pass can write down; it is
-what a reader may conclude from the absence of findings, and the concluding is theirs.
-
-**FINDING** — the arc is broken; \`<count>\` is the number of sections the new outline moves, merges
-or deletes, and \`<report-path>\` is that outline. Add \`--blocking\` when there is no conclusion
-sentence to build an arc from: that refusal is a finding about the draft, not an aborted run, and
-\`<report-path>\` is the one-line statement of what is missing.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: the outline was read end to end and nothing moved. \`blocked\`: there
-was no outline to read at all.
-
-An \`ABSTAINED no-witness\` on a draft the author has twice called a pile is a missed finding, and
-\`status.mjs\` will start asking about a check that has only ever abstained.
-
 ## Rules
 
 - **The arc is judged on the outline, never on the draft.** If you find yourself rereading paragraphs

package/skills/build-benchmark/SKILL.md

@@ -5,21 +5,10 @@ context: fork
 allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, Agent]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:067ada6f8aa44d5b compiled from skills/build-benchmark/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:0b91129ca6a6b2a3 compiled from skills/build-benchmark/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # build-benchmark — the study + the artifact reviewers can run
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs build-benchmark <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 is only as strong as the artifact a reviewer can `cd` into and re-run. This skill
 covers both halves: the study design that makes the finding true, and the self-checking artifact that
 makes it *verifiable*. The contribution is the **method**, not the one tool you happened to test — build
@@ -163,35 +152,6 @@ real-code-through-real-contract execution reveals it.
 Before submitting, verify the artifact you built with the reviewer-side reproduction protocol:
 **`references/adversarial-cold-repro.md`** (cold re-run, three-way reconcile, robustness attacks).
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record build-benchmark <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record build-benchmark <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS.** An artifact that recomputes every headline number and exits 0 has produced
-no finding; it has not certified the study. Record the absence, do not name it a success.
-
-**FINDING** — `<count>` numbers did not reproduce, or reproduce only with caveats; `<report-path>`
-is the artifact output. Add `--blocking` for the §0 refusal: `frame` is empty, so the study was not
-designed.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: the artifact ran and every number reproduced. `input-missing`: the
-raw data is not in the repo. `crashed`: the harness itself died.
-
-🔴 That §0 refusal is a **finding, not an aborted run** — it is a fact about the work, so it is a
-FINDING and not an abstention. Record it and stop. A study that was never designed leaves exactly
-the same silence as one that is still running, and the difference costs a week to rediscover.
-
-🔴 **THREE MECHANICAL CHECKS FILE UNDER THIS SKILL** and each has its own ledger row:
-`build-benchmark/check-provenance`, `build-benchmark/arm-permutation`,
-`build-benchmark/delivered-pdf` (see `.claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/run-mechanical.mjs`). Until 2026-08-10 the
-ledger keyed on the SKILL, so a clean run of one erased a finding of another from every derived
-view — which is why two of the three sat unwired. This block records the JUDGEMENT pass, under the
-bare key `build-benchmark`; never file a mechanical result here.
-
 ## Compose with
 - **argument-arc (frame mode)** — 🔴 **hard input.** Owns row `frame`, the stated claim. No `frame`, no study.
 - **research-ideate** (upstream) — supplies the contribution and the pitfall to invert; this skill turns

package/skills/build-benchmark/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -15,17 +15,6 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   body: `
 # build-benchmark — the study + the artifact reviewers can run
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs build-benchmark <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 is only as strong as the artifact a reviewer can \`cd\` into and re-run. This skill
 covers both halves: the study design that makes the finding true, and the self-checking artifact that
 makes it *verifiable*. The contribution is the **method**, not the one tool you happened to test — build
@@ -169,35 +158,6 @@ real-code-through-real-contract execution reveals it.
 Before submitting, verify the artifact you built with the reviewer-side reproduction protocol:
 **\`references/adversarial-cold-repro.md\`** (cold re-run, three-way reconcile, robustness attacks).
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record build-benchmark <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record build-benchmark <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS.** An artifact that recomputes every headline number and exits 0 has produced
-no finding; it has not certified the study. Record the absence, do not name it a success.
-
-**FINDING** — \`<count>\` numbers did not reproduce, or reproduce only with caveats; \`<report-path>\`
-is the artifact output. Add \`--blocking\` for the §0 refusal: \`frame\` is empty, so the study was not
-designed.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: the artifact ran and every number reproduced. \`input-missing\`: the
-raw data is not in the repo. \`crashed\`: the harness itself died.
-
-🔴 That §0 refusal is a **finding, not an aborted run** — it is a fact about the work, so it is a
-FINDING and not an abstention. Record it and stop. A study that was never designed leaves exactly
-the same silence as one that is still running, and the difference costs a week to rediscover.
-
-🔴 **THREE MECHANICAL CHECKS FILE UNDER THIS SKILL** and each has its own ledger row:
-\`build-benchmark/check-provenance\`, \`build-benchmark/arm-permutation\`,
-\`build-benchmark/delivered-pdf\` (see \`.claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/run-mechanical.mjs\`). Until 2026-08-10 the
-ledger keyed on the SKILL, so a clean run of one erased a finding of another from every derived
-view — which is why two of the three sat unwired. This block records the JUDGEMENT pass, under the
-bare key \`build-benchmark\`; never file a mechanical result here.
-
 ## Compose with
 - **argument-arc (frame mode)** — 🔴 **hard input.** Owns row \`frame\`, the stated claim. No \`frame\`, no study.
 - **research-ideate** (upstream) — supplies the contribution and the pitfall to invert; this skill turns

package/skills/camera-ready/SKILL.md

@@ -4,21 +4,10 @@ description: On acceptance, turn the anonymized-for-review paper into the de-ano
 allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebSearch, WebFetch]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:8fa0190054cc5314 compiled from skills/camera-ready/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:5c85ef4004c31956 compiled from skills/camera-ready/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # camera-ready — de-anonymize an accepted paper into the final proceedings version
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs camera-ready <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 reviewed PDF was anonymized on purpose. Acceptance flips that: the camera-ready carries your
 real name, your real repo, and an archival DOI — and it's the version that gets indexed, so it's the
 actual authorship evidence. This skill is the reverse of the anonymization you did at
@@ -113,28 +102,6 @@ If tight, ACM allows references to spill into the reference-only extra pages.
 - Record the paper's DOI, the artifact DOI, and the ORCID in the paper's HANDOFF — those three IDs are
   the authorship evidence and the anchor the extension (`extend-paper`) builds on.
 
-## 6. Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record camera-ready <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record camera-ready <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-**FINDING** — `<count>` residual items still open; `<report-path>` names them. Add `--blocking` for
-anything that must not be pushed past: anonymization residue, a dead artifact link, or — on a
-security paper — disclosure not yet complete.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: shipped, de-anonymized, DOI live, page limit re-checked, with the DOI
-in the note. `blocked`: the acceptance notice has not arrived, so there is nothing to make ready.
-
-🔴 That blocking finding is the only one in this pipeline whose consequence is **irreversible**. The
-public de-anonymized repo is Google-findable the moment it is pushed, so record it before, not after.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, and on this skill that is not a formality: a stored "shipped" would have
-been the one row in the pipeline that could be true of a repo nobody had looked at. The DOI in the
-note is the witness. Without it there is nothing to check the row against.
-
 ## Compose with
 - **submit-paper** (upstream — this reverses what it anonymized).
 - **paper-pipeline/references/anonymization.md** — the canonical list of anonymization moves; undo each.

package/skills/camera-ready/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -23,17 +23,6 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   body: `
 # camera-ready — de-anonymize an accepted paper into the final proceedings version
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs camera-ready <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 reviewed PDF was anonymized on purpose. Acceptance flips that: the camera-ready carries your
 real name, your real repo, and an archival DOI — and it's the version that gets indexed, so it's the
 actual authorship evidence. This skill is the reverse of the anonymization you did at
@@ -128,28 +117,6 @@ If tight, ACM allows references to spill into the reference-only extra pages.
 - Record the paper's DOI, the artifact DOI, and the ORCID in the paper's HANDOFF — those three IDs are
   the authorship evidence and the anchor the extension (\`extend-paper\`) builds on.
 
-## 6. Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record camera-ready <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record camera-ready <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-**FINDING** — \`<count>\` residual items still open; \`<report-path>\` names them. Add \`--blocking\` for
-anything that must not be pushed past: anonymization residue, a dead artifact link, or — on a
-security paper — disclosure not yet complete.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: shipped, de-anonymized, DOI live, page limit re-checked, with the DOI
-in the note. \`blocked\`: the acceptance notice has not arrived, so there is nothing to make ready.
-
-🔴 That blocking finding is the only one in this pipeline whose consequence is **irreversible**. The
-public de-anonymized repo is Google-findable the moment it is pushed, so record it before, not after.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, and on this skill that is not a formality: a stored "shipped" would have
-been the one row in the pipeline that could be true of a repo nobody had looked at. The DOI in the
-note is the witness. Without it there is nothing to check the row against.
-
 ## Compose with
 - **submit-paper** (upstream — this reverses what it anonymized).
 - **paper-pipeline/references/anonymization.md** — the canonical list of anonymization moves; undo each.

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).