paperlint 3.2.0 → 4.0.0

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

@@ -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):`,
       );

package/skills/grade-paper-writing/prose-lint.test.ts

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 /**
- * prose-lint.mjs as a process — the way the skill and `run-mechanical.mjs` run it. Every mode, on
+ * prose-lint.mjs as a process — the way the skill runs it. Every mode, on
  * fixtures written here, with the WHOLE output compared: the report is the product, so a changed
  * number or a dropped line is a changed result.
  */

package/skills/harden-paper/SKILL.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ description: Use when asking "is this paper actually ready to submit?" / "what's
 allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent, Skill]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:7fb5e8709eb4c363 compiled from skills/harden-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:5283c1dbb4693721 compiled from skills/harden-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # harden-paper — the multi-axis pre-submit gate
 
@@ -15,17 +15,6 @@ allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent,
 > doesn't systematically hit — the submission-readiness gate. Run it after the draft is written and
 > before `submit-paper`. It does not re-implement the sub-skills; it calls them and checks the rest.
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs harden-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.
-
 **Principle:** a paper dies from any *one* unclosed axis. Reviewers only *read* — so every claim,
 number, and omission must survive on the page. Go axis by axis; for each, **find → fix → re-verify**,
 don't just list. Below, each axis says what to run / check and the specific traps that recur.
@@ -285,33 +274,6 @@ framing, the one quotable stat, the reusable artifact, any dry-humour line and w
 list of items only the author can close (host artifact, click submit, disclose-before-public, post the
 preprint). If every gate passes and every axis is PASS/FIXED → hand off to `submit-paper`.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record harden-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record harden-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-**FINDING** — `<count>` is the number of failing gates plus still-OPEN axes and `<report-path>` the
-worst-gate-first vector. Add `--blocking` when any gate in the vector fails, as opposed to an axis
-merely being open.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: every gate answered and no axis is open, which is the state that hands
-off to `submit-paper`. `blocked`: a gate in the vector has never been run, so the vector has a hole
-in it and there is nothing to hand off.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS, and this skill must not reinvent one.** Its whole design is that the verdict
-is a VECTOR reported worst-gate-first, and a stored scalar acquittal was the single value that could
-flatten it. `no-witness` here means every gate answered and none of them found anything — it is not
-"ready", and the readiness call is a sentence a human writes in the report.
-
-🔴 **Never record the accept-probability as the count.** A single scalar hiding a multi-dimensional
-failure is the exact thing this skill refuses to report in prose, and a ledger row is prose that
-survives longer.
-
-The artifact-coverage script files separately as `harden-paper/artifact-coverage`. One check, one row.
-
 ## Composes with
 `tighten-paper` (axis 0, run FIRST — structure before sentences), `paper-adversarial-review` +
 `pc-panel-review` + `verify-citations` + `grade-paper-writing` (called by this), `render-paper` (if LaTeX

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

@@ -32,17 +32,6 @@ export default experimental_skill({
 > doesn't systematically hit — the submission-readiness gate. Run it after the draft is written and
 > before \`submit-paper\`. It does not re-implement the sub-skills; it calls them and checks the rest.
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs harden-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.
-
 **Principle:** a paper dies from any *one* unclosed axis. Reviewers only *read* — so every claim,
 number, and omission must survive on the page. Go axis by axis; for each, **find → fix → re-verify**,
 don't just list. Below, each axis says what to run / check and the specific traps that recur.
@@ -302,33 +291,6 @@ framing, the one quotable stat, the reusable artifact, any dry-humour line and w
 list of items only the author can close (host artifact, click submit, disclose-before-public, post the
 preprint). If every gate passes and every axis is PASS/FIXED → hand off to \`submit-paper\`.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record harden-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record harden-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-**FINDING** — \`<count>\` is the number of failing gates plus still-OPEN axes and \`<report-path>\` the
-worst-gate-first vector. Add \`--blocking\` when any gate in the vector fails, as opposed to an axis
-merely being open.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: every gate answered and no axis is open, which is the state that hands
-off to \`submit-paper\`. \`blocked\`: a gate in the vector has never been run, so the vector has a hole
-in it and there is nothing to hand off.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS, and this skill must not reinvent one.** Its whole design is that the verdict
-is a VECTOR reported worst-gate-first, and a stored scalar acquittal was the single value that could
-flatten it. \`no-witness\` here means every gate answered and none of them found anything — it is not
-"ready", and the readiness call is a sentence a human writes in the report.
-
-🔴 **Never record the accept-probability as the count.** A single scalar hiding a multi-dimensional
-failure is the exact thing this skill refuses to report in prose, and a ledger row is prose that
-survives longer.
-
-The artifact-coverage script files separately as \`harden-paper/artifact-coverage\`. One check, one row.
-
 ## Composes with
 \`tighten-paper\` (axis 0, run FIRST — structure before sentences), \`paper-adversarial-review\` +
 \`pc-panel-review\` + \`verify-citations\` + \`grade-paper-writing\` (called by this), \`render-paper\` (if LaTeX

package/skills/map-prior-work/SKILL.md

@@ -5,21 +5,10 @@ context: fork
 allowed-tools: [WebSearch, WebFetch, Read, Write, Grep, Glob, Bash, Agent]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:353e5a21b731a548 compiled from skills/map-prior-work/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:55971644308c470f compiled from skills/map-prior-work/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # map-prior-work — find out who already did it, while you can still change course
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs map-prior-work <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 expensive failure this prevents, in one sentence: **you discover the paper that already did your
 contribution after the draft is finished, when the only move left is rewriting the claim under deadline.**
 
@@ -173,29 +162,6 @@ you looked.
 
 ---
 
-## Step 8 — record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record map-prior-work <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record map-prior-work <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-**FINDING** — `<count>` is the number of rivals triaged 🔴 or 🟠 (they threaten the claim),
-`<report-path>` is the sweep file. Add `--blocking` when a rival did the contribution first and the
-claim has to change.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: swept, and nothing found threatens what you claim. `blocked`: the
-paper has no stated contribution yet, so there is nothing to sweep against.
-
-That blocking finding is the outcome this skill was written from, discovered at T−10 days by
-accident. Recorded here it is a dated fact about the field rather than a memory of a bad night.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, and this skill is where the reason is easiest to see. "Nothing threatens
-the claim" is a statement about everything that exists, made by a sweep that read a bounded list —
-so it can never be witnessed, only ever failed to be refuted. `no-witness` says that in one word,
-and the sweep's own coverage-gaps section says how far the reading actually went.
-
 ## Rules
 
 - **Mark evidence level on every claim:** `[A]` full text · `[B]` abstract/metadata · `[C]` your

package/skills/map-prior-work/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -24,17 +24,6 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   body: `
 # map-prior-work — find out who already did it, while you can still change course
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs map-prior-work <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 expensive failure this prevents, in one sentence: **you discover the paper that already did your
 contribution after the draft is finished, when the only move left is rewriting the claim under deadline.**
 
@@ -188,29 +177,6 @@ you looked.
 
 ---
 
-## Step 8 — record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record map-prior-work <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record map-prior-work <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-**FINDING** — \`<count>\` is the number of rivals triaged 🔴 or 🟠 (they threaten the claim),
-\`<report-path>\` is the sweep file. Add \`--blocking\` when a rival did the contribution first and the
-claim has to change.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: swept, and nothing found threatens what you claim. \`blocked\`: the
-paper has no stated contribution yet, so there is nothing to sweep against.
-
-That blocking finding is the outcome this skill was written from, discovered at T−10 days by
-accident. Recorded here it is a dated fact about the field rather than a memory of a bad night.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, and this skill is where the reason is easiest to see. "Nothing threatens
-the claim" is a statement about everything that exists, made by a sweep that read a bounded list —
-so it can never be witnessed, only ever failed to be refuted. \`no-witness\` says that in one word,
-and the sweep's own coverage-gaps section says how far the reading actually went.
-
 ## Rules
 
 - **Mark evidence level on every claim:** \`[A]\` full text · \`[B]\` abstract/metadata · \`[C]\` your

package/skills/osf-artifact-upload/osf-artifact-upload.harness.ts

@@ -1,10 +1,9 @@
 /**
  * osf-artifact-upload — the free, deterministic tier. No model, no network, no OSF.
  *
- * WHY THIS ONE IS NOT A `checkSkill()` ONE-LINER. It carries no
- * `announce.mjs <self>` line, so by the pipeline's own membership contract it is
- * not a stage — it is a utility `submit-paper` composes with, and the shared
- * per-skill checks would (correctly) reject it.
+ * WHY THIS ONE IS NOT A `checkSkill()` ONE-LINER. It is not a stage — it is a
+ * utility `submit-paper` composes with — and what matters about it is the rules
+ * it states about its own commands, which the shared per-skill checks do not read.
  *
  * WHAT IT CHECKS: the two rules this skill states about its OWN commands, in its
  * own §gotchas — that every `curl` carries `-g` (bracketed OSF params glob and