paperlint 3.2.0 → 4.1.0

package/skills/research-ideate/SKILL.md

@@ -1,28 +1,13 @@
 ---
 name: research-ideate
 description: "Decide whether a research idea is worth doing at all — before any work goes into it. Use when someone has an idea and asks: is this worth pursuing, should we take it on, is it a paper or just a blog post, is there a quick minimal result that doesn't need a dramatic finding, will it pull us away from our main line of work. Returns a go / no-go verdict with the sharpest framing, the minimal finding and the kinds of venue that would take it. Judges the idea by what counts in a body of work: a peer-reviewed indexed publication, a reusable method or benchmark rather than a one-off \"tool X is bad\", onward citations rather than GitHub stars, and one connected line rather than scattered topics. Stage: conception, before find-venue and before any draft; hands off to find-venue, build-benchmark, draft-paper."
-allowed-tools: [Read, Write, 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, Grep, Glob, Agent, Skill]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:f0ccfb74162bca40 compiled from skills/research-ideate/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:03a0131d306d7ab0 compiled from skills/research-ideate/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # research-ideate — is this idea worth a paper, and does the paper earn authorship credit?
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs research-ideate <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.
-
 Runs BEFORE any effort is spent. An idea can be interesting and still be a bad *publication*
 investment — the wrong framing produces something un-publishable or un-citable, which counts for
 nothing toward a body of work. This skill kills those ideas early and reshapes the survivors into the framing
@@ -87,28 +72,6 @@ Emit a compact verdict:
    e.g. "security-of-AI-coding workshop @ a top-tier security conference," "SE-measurement workshop @
    ASE/FSE," "eval/benchmark track." Hand these to `find-venue`.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record research-ideate <dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record research-ideate <dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, so there is no way to write down "go" as a value. A clean go is the
-absence of findings across the axes, and whoever wants to call it a go says so themselves.
-
-**FINDING** — go with reshaping, where `<count>` is the number of axes that need it and
-`<report-path>` is the output. Add `--blocking` for a no-go: axis (a) is a hard stop, not a weight,
-and a no-go is the loudest finding this skill produces.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: all axes were scored and none needed reshaping. `blocked`: the idea
-was too vague to score, which is a different thing from a no-go and must not be recorded as one.
-
-A recorded no-go is the cheapest artifact in this whole pipeline, and the one most often lost: an idea
-killed in conversation comes back three months later wearing a different name, and nothing in the repo
-remembers that it was already judged.
-
 ## Rules
 - Axis (a) is a gate, not a weight — no indexed peer review, no idea. Everything else reshapes.
 - Never justify an idea by GitHub stars, demo virality, or "it'd be a great blog post." Those don't

package/skills/research-ideate/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -10,34 +10,10 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   name: "research-ideate",
   description:
     'Decide whether a research idea is worth doing at all — before any work goes into it. Use when someone has an idea and asks: is this worth pursuing, should we take it on, is it a paper or just a blog post, is there a quick minimal result that doesn\'t need a dramatic finding, will it pull us away from our main line of work. Returns a go / no-go verdict with the sharpest framing, the minimal finding and the kinds of venue that would take it. Judges the idea by what counts in a body of work: a peer-reviewed indexed publication, a reusable method or benchmark rather than a one-off "tool X is bad", onward citations rather than GitHub stars, and one connected line rather than scattered topics. Stage: conception, before find-venue and before any draft; hands off to find-venue, build-benchmark, draft-paper.',
-  tools: [
-    "Read",
-    "Write",
-    "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", "Grep", "Glob", "Agent", "Skill"],
   body: `
 # research-ideate — is this idea worth a paper, and does the paper earn authorship credit?
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs research-ideate <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.
-
 Runs BEFORE any effort is spent. An idea can be interesting and still be a bad *publication*
 investment — the wrong framing produces something un-publishable or un-citable, which counts for
 nothing toward a body of work. This skill kills those ideas early and reshapes the survivors into the framing
@@ -102,28 +78,6 @@ Emit a compact verdict:
    e.g. "security-of-AI-coding workshop @ a top-tier security conference," "SE-measurement workshop @
    ASE/FSE," "eval/benchmark track." Hand these to \`find-venue\`.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record research-ideate <dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record research-ideate <dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, so there is no way to write down "go" as a value. A clean go is the
-absence of findings across the axes, and whoever wants to call it a go says so themselves.
-
-**FINDING** — go with reshaping, where \`<count>\` is the number of axes that need it and
-\`<report-path>\` is the output. Add \`--blocking\` for a no-go: axis (a) is a hard stop, not a weight,
-and a no-go is the loudest finding this skill produces.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: all axes were scored and none needed reshaping. \`blocked\`: the idea
-was too vague to score, which is a different thing from a no-go and must not be recorded as one.
-
-A recorded no-go is the cheapest artifact in this whole pipeline, and the one most often lost: an idea
-killed in conversation comes back three months later wearing a different name, and nothing in the repo
-remembers that it was already judged.
-
 ## Rules
 - Axis (a) is a gate, not a weight — no indexed peer review, no idea. Everything else reshapes.
 - Never justify an idea by GitHub stars, demo virality, or "it'd be a great blog post." Those don't

package/skills/study-accepted-papers/SKILL.md

@@ -5,21 +5,10 @@ context: fork
 allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:177ca8805990361e compiled from skills/study-accepted-papers/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:e199b342e4e98338 compiled from skills/study-accepted-papers/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # study-accepted-papers — learn the venue's bar from its own accepted corpus, then lever your draft up
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs study-accepted-papers <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.
-
 Reviewers don't score in a vacuum — they score against the papers that got in last cycle. This skill
 makes that reference standard explicit: pull the venue's **actually-accepted** papers of your type,
 extract the concrete properties that separated the strong ones from the weak-accepts, and diff your
@@ -157,28 +146,6 @@ being violated, and the **things previously believed that the corpus disproved**
 valuable lines in the file, because without them the pipeline re-derives the wrong belief). Keep it
 short enough that it survives being loaded into every session.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record study-accepted-papers <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record study-accepted-papers <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-**FINDING** — `<count>` is the number of levers, `<report-path>` the ranked CHEAP/EXPENSIVE list.
-Add `--blocking` when the draft is missing something the track *requires* (an artifact link, a named
-benchmark, a metric definition): a desk-reject, never a weak accept, and worth the loudest thing
-this skill can say.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: the corpus was read and no lever came out of it. `input-missing`: the
-venue publishes no accepted papers to mine.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, and the reason is visible here. "The draft already sits at the venue's bar"
-is only meaningful next to the corpus it was measured against — *33 of 34 accepted papers*, not
-*most of them* — and a stored acquittal carried that denominator nowhere. Put the corpus size in the
-`ABSTAINED` note and in the report; without it the row is an impression with a machine-readable
-label on it.
-
 ## Rules
 - **Fetch real accepted papers.** Never fabricate a title, author, or "what made it strong". Unverifiable → drop or mark VERIFY.
 - **A lever-proposed citation is not written into the `.tex`/bib until `verify-citations` confirms it** (real

package/skills/study-accepted-papers/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -25,17 +25,6 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   body: `
 # study-accepted-papers — learn the venue's bar from its own accepted corpus, then lever your draft up
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs study-accepted-papers <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.
-
 Reviewers don't score in a vacuum — they score against the papers that got in last cycle. This skill
 makes that reference standard explicit: pull the venue's **actually-accepted** papers of your type,
 extract the concrete properties that separated the strong ones from the weak-accepts, and diff your
@@ -173,28 +162,6 @@ being violated, and the **things previously believed that the corpus disproved**
 valuable lines in the file, because without them the pipeline re-derives the wrong belief). Keep it
 short enough that it survives being loaded into every session.
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record study-accepted-papers <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record study-accepted-papers <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-**FINDING** — \`<count>\` is the number of levers, \`<report-path>\` the ranked CHEAP/EXPENSIVE list.
-Add \`--blocking\` when the draft is missing something the track *requires* (an artifact link, a named
-benchmark, a metric definition): a desk-reject, never a weak accept, and worth the loudest thing
-this skill can say.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: the corpus was read and no lever came out of it. \`input-missing\`: the
-venue publishes no accepted papers to mine.
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS**, and the reason is visible here. "The draft already sits at the venue's bar"
-is only meaningful next to the corpus it was measured against — *33 of 34 accepted papers*, not
-*most of them* — and a stored acquittal carried that denominator nowhere. Put the corpus size in the
-\`ABSTAINED\` note and in the report; without it the row is an impression with a machine-readable
-label on it.
-
 ## Rules
 - **Fetch real accepted papers.** Never fabricate a title, author, or "what made it strong". Unverifiable → drop or mark VERIFY.
 - **A lever-proposed citation is not written into the \`.tex\`/bib until \`verify-citations\` confirms it** (real

package/skills/submit-paper/SKILL.md

@@ -4,21 +4,10 @@ description: End-to-end playbook for submitting a peer-reviewed paper to a doubl
 allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebSearch, WebFetch, Skill]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:4a42424fd18098e5 compiled from skills/submit-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:9e57bcb2ba1fb055 compiled from skills/submit-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # submit-paper — get a reviewed paper from "done" to "ready for review"
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs submit-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.
-
 Assumes the paper is already hardened (run `pc-panel-review` — incl. its venue-fit mode — +
 `paper-adversarial-review` first). This skill is the submission mechanics — the part that bit us with
 avoidable friction the first time. Distilled from the AgenticDev 2026 submission.
@@ -155,27 +144,6 @@ the file inside was the wrong build (340 952 B vs the real 352 357 B). It surfac
 cited `L. 166` and there was nothing to resolve the line against. A folder without a checker is a
 convention with no reader.
 
-## 8. Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record submit-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record submit-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-**FINDING** — `check-deanon.sh` exited non-zero, `access` is not green, the PDF is over the limit, or
-the ready-for-review click never happened; `<count>` is the number of blocking items and
-`<report-path>` names them. Always `--blocking` — every item here stops the submission.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: uploaded **and** marked ready for review, with the venue card or the
-submission id in the note. `blocked`: the portal account is not through moderation yet.
-
-🔴 **A saved draft must never be recorded as done — and it now cannot be.** A saved-but-not-submitted
-paper is the one failure this skill's provenance names by hand, and it was invisible to every other
-check in the pipeline. There is no constructor for "submitted"; there is only the absence of blocking
-items, plus a submission id in the note that a human can go and look up. The id IS the witness, and
-recording `no-witness` without one is the same lie in a new vocabulary.
-
 ## Compose with
 - Harden first: `pc-panel-review` (incl. its venue-fit mode), `paper-adversarial-review`, `render-paper`.
 - Publisher mechanics (camera-ready): `references/publishers/<publisher>.md`.

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

@@ -24,17 +24,6 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   body: `
 # submit-paper — get a reviewed paper from "done" to "ready for review"
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs submit-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.
-
 Assumes the paper is already hardened (run \`pc-panel-review\` — incl. its venue-fit mode — +
 \`paper-adversarial-review\` first). This skill is the submission mechanics — the part that bit us with
 avoidable friction the first time. Distilled from the AgenticDev 2026 submission.
@@ -171,27 +160,6 @@ the file inside was the wrong build (340 952 B vs the real 352 357 B). It surfac
 cited \`L. 166\` and there was nothing to resolve the line against. A folder without a checker is a
 convention with no reader.
 
-## 8. Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record submit-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record submit-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-**FINDING** — \`check-deanon.sh\` exited non-zero, \`access\` is not green, the PDF is over the limit, or
-the ready-for-review click never happened; \`<count>\` is the number of blocking items and
-\`<report-path>\` names them. Always \`--blocking\` — every item here stops the submission.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: uploaded **and** marked ready for review, with the venue card or the
-submission id in the note. \`blocked\`: the portal account is not through moderation yet.
-
-🔴 **A saved draft must never be recorded as done — and it now cannot be.** A saved-but-not-submitted
-paper is the one failure this skill's provenance names by hand, and it was invisible to every other
-check in the pipeline. There is no constructor for "submitted"; there is only the absence of blocking
-items, plus a submission id in the note that a human can go and look up. The id IS the witness, and
-recording \`no-witness\` without one is the same lie in a new vocabulary.
-
 ## Compose with
 - Harden first: \`pc-panel-review\` (incl. its venue-fit mode), \`paper-adversarial-review\`, \`render-paper\`.
 - Publisher mechanics (camera-ready): \`references/publishers/<publisher>.md\`.

package/skills/sweep-design-space/SKILL.md

@@ -5,25 +5,10 @@ context: fork
 allowed-tools: [WebSearch, WebFetch, Read, Write, Grep, Glob, Bash, Agent]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:1822c8c01e352f42 compiled from skills/sweep-design-space/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:46cb38ac1731883d compiled from skills/sweep-design-space/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # sweep-design-space — stop circling, sweep
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs sweep-design-space <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.
-
 A model asked for "a solution" returns the three designs nearest its training prior, then variations of
 those, then variations of the variations. The user experiences this as *"you are thinking very narrowly"* —
 and they are right. The fix is not to think harder in place; it is to **sweep named source domains on
@@ -214,28 +199,6 @@ assurance levels already exist; the question is whether anyone has carried them
 
 ---
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record sweep-design-space <dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record sweep-design-space <dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS.** A sweep that turns up survivors has not certified anything; it has found
-candidates, and candidates are findings.
-
-**FINDING** — the sweep produced something to act on; `<count>` is the number of survivors and
-`<report-path>` the sweep, including the groups that yielded nothing. Add `--blocking` when the
-whole sweep died on the filters — that is the loudest thing this skill can say.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: the sweep ran and neither found a survivor nor established that none
-exists. `blocked`: there was no problem statement to sweep against.
-
-The skill's own rules already say negative results count. The ledger is how that survives the session:
-a recorded finding names the groups that were swept, so the next sweep starts from named constructs
-instead of from memory — which is the failure mode this skill exists to break.
-
 ## Rules
 
 - **Name the forbidden options in the generation brief.** Without an explicit "do not return these"

package/skills/sweep-design-space/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -24,21 +24,6 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   body: `
 # sweep-design-space — stop circling, sweep
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs sweep-design-space <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.
-
 A model asked for "a solution" returns the three designs nearest its training prior, then variations of
 those, then variations of the variations. The user experiences this as *"you are thinking very narrowly"* —
 and they are right. The fix is not to think harder in place; it is to **sweep named source domains on
@@ -229,28 +214,6 @@ assurance levels already exist; the question is whether anyone has carried them
 
 ---
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record sweep-design-space <dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record sweep-design-space <dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-🔴 **There is no PASS.** A sweep that turns up survivors has not certified anything; it has found
-candidates, and candidates are findings.
-
-**FINDING** — the sweep produced something to act on; \`<count>\` is the number of survivors and
-\`<report-path>\` the sweep, including the groups that yielded nothing. Add \`--blocking\` when the
-whole sweep died on the filters — that is the loudest thing this skill can say.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: the sweep ran and neither found a survivor nor established that none
-exists. \`blocked\`: there was no problem statement to sweep against.
-
-The skill's own rules already say negative results count. The ledger is how that survives the session:
-a recorded finding names the groups that were swept, so the next sweep starts from named constructs
-instead of from memory — which is the failure mode this skill exists to break.
-
 ## Rules
 
 - **Name the forbidden options in the generation brief.** Without an explicit "do not return these"

package/skills/tighten-paper/SKILL.md

@@ -1,24 +1,13 @@
 ---
 name: tighten-paper
 description: "Use when a paper \"feels long / bloated / overly complex / hard to read / doesn't deliver its point / the middle drags\" — or after review rounds deposited hedge-mass. The developmental / editorial pass on a DRAFTED paper: what a real human editor thinks reading it cover to cover — the ONE point, does every section earn its place, can it be SKIMMED, is it too long for its contribution, which sections are TMI that belong in the artifact/appendix, does the conclusion pay off the intro's promise. Produces a structural verdict + a concrete cut / fold / merge / reorder plan — NOT sentence fixes. Its verdict is a required INPUT to pc-panel-review and a hard gate in harden-paper. NOT sentence craft or a writing grade (grade-paper-writing), NOT jargon stalls (the persona stall pass), NOT scientific defects (pc-panel-review / paper-adversarial-review). Run it BEFORE those on a bloated draft — no point polishing sentences in a section that should be cut."
-allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, 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, Edit, Grep, Glob, Agent]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:79a018d2fd2bf3e7 compiled from skills/tighten-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:fd00cde33ea4b81c compiled from skills/tighten-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # tighten-paper — the developmental edit
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs tighten-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.
-
 Sentence-level passes make a wall of text into readable text. They do **not** tell you the wall shouldn't be there
 at all. This pass is the editor who reads the whole paper once and asks: *is this the right paper, at the right
 length, delivering the right point?* Its deliverable is a **cut/fold/merge/reorder plan and a length verdict**, not
@@ -321,32 +310,6 @@ Produce:
 - **The middle-sag diagnosis** and the fix (consolidate these findings, lead each with its point).
 - **Skim-test failures** (headings/lead-sentences that don't carry the argument).
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-```
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record tighten-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record tighten-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-```
-
-**FINDING** is the normal row — `<count>` is the number of CUT / FOLD / MERGE / REORDER actions in
-the plan and `<report-path>` is the plan itself. Add `--blocking` when the paper is over its limit
-and the plan cannot get it under.
-**ABSTAINED** — `no-witness`: a cover-to-cover read produced no action at all, which on a real draft
-should be rare. `blocked`: the declined pass of the section above — content is still being added, so
-there was nothing to read whole.
-
-🔴 **This is the check with the documented history of never saying no**: a tightening pass once
-returned KEEP on 80 of 81 sections and still counted as run. It is also one of the three failures
-that deleted `PASS` — the word made "I read it all and nothing moved" indistinguishable from "I did
-not really read it". `status.mjs` reports a check that has never recorded a finding, on the
-mutation-testing principle that a test which kills no mutant is not a test. So an `ABSTAINED
-no-witness` here owes a note saying what was read and why nothing moved.
-
-The mechanical half of this skill files separately, under `tighten-paper/structure` — one check, one
-row. Do not record a `structure.mjs` result here.
-
 ## Compose
 Run this FIRST on a draft that "feels bloated" — before grade-paper-writing / the stall pass / pc-panel, because
 polishing sentences in a section that should be folded to the artifact is wasted work. After the plan is applied,

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

@@ -10,30 +10,10 @@ export default experimental_skill({
   name: "tighten-paper",
   description:
     "Use when a paper \"feels long / bloated / overly complex / hard to read / doesn't deliver its point / the middle drags\" — or after review rounds deposited hedge-mass. The developmental / editorial pass on a DRAFTED paper: what a real human editor thinks reading it cover to cover — the ONE point, does every section earn its place, can it be SKIMMED, is it too long for its contribution, which sections are TMI that belong in the artifact/appendix, does the conclusion pay off the intro's promise. Produces a structural verdict + a concrete cut / fold / merge / reorder plan — NOT sentence fixes. Its verdict is a required INPUT to pc-panel-review and a hard gate in harden-paper. NOT sentence craft or a writing grade (grade-paper-writing), NOT jargon stalls (the persona stall pass), NOT scientific defects (pc-panel-review / paper-adversarial-review). Run it BEFORE those on a bloated draft — no point polishing sentences in a section that should be cut.",
-  tools: [
-    "Read",
-    "Write",
-    "Edit",
-    "Grep",
-    "Glob",
-    "Agent",
-    "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"],
   body: `
 # tighten-paper — the developmental edit
 
-## Run me
-
-🔴 FIRST, before any other step:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/announce.mjs tighten-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.
-
 Sentence-level passes make a wall of text into readable text. They do **not** tell you the wall shouldn't be there
 at all. This pass is the editor who reads the whole paper once and asks: *is this the right paper, at the right
 length, delivering the right point?* Its deliverable is a **cut/fold/merge/reorder plan and a length verdict**, not
@@ -336,32 +316,6 @@ Produce:
 - **The middle-sag diagnosis** and the fix (consolidate these findings, lead each with its point).
 - **Skim-test failures** (headings/lead-sentences that don't carry the argument).
 
-## Record the verdict
-
-🔴 LAST step, once the deliverable exists:
-
-\`\`\`
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record tighten-paper <paper-dir> FINDING <count> <report-path>
-node .claude/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/ledger.mjs record tighten-paper <paper-dir> ABSTAINED <reason> "<one line>"
-\`\`\`
-
-**FINDING** is the normal row — \`<count>\` is the number of CUT / FOLD / MERGE / REORDER actions in
-the plan and \`<report-path>\` is the plan itself. Add \`--blocking\` when the paper is over its limit
-and the plan cannot get it under.
-**ABSTAINED** — \`no-witness\`: a cover-to-cover read produced no action at all, which on a real draft
-should be rare. \`blocked\`: the declined pass of the section above — content is still being added, so
-there was nothing to read whole.
-
-🔴 **This is the check with the documented history of never saying no**: a tightening pass once
-returned KEEP on 80 of 81 sections and still counted as run. It is also one of the three failures
-that deleted \`PASS\` — the word made "I read it all and nothing moved" indistinguishable from "I did
-not really read it". \`status.mjs\` reports a check that has never recorded a finding, on the
-mutation-testing principle that a test which kills no mutant is not a test. So an \`ABSTAINED
-no-witness\` here owes a note saying what was read and why nothing moved.
-
-The mechanical half of this skill files separately, under \`tighten-paper/structure\` — one check, one
-row. Do not record a \`structure.mjs\` result here.
-
 ## Compose
 Run this FIRST on a draft that "feels bloated" — before grade-paper-writing / the stall pass / pc-panel, because
 polishing sentences in a section that should be folded to the artifact is wasted work. After the plan is applied,

package/skills/tighten-paper/structure.mjs

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
  *
  * ── 2026-08-26, EVENING: BOTH NAMED CONSUMERS ARE CLOSED, AND A THIRD ONE TURNED UP ────────
  *
- * The paragraph above named two callers and said that until they are converted, the ledger writes
+ * The paragraph above named two callers and said that until they are converted, they read
  * "no findings" BY SILENCE. That was true and measured: on `the reference paper/paper.md`
  * `--flags-only` printed 0 lines, while the same bytes through ESLint give **6 findings**
  * (`subsection-size` ×2 · `section-lead` · `free-section-size` ×2 · `block-ungraded`).
@@ -31,11 +31,6 @@
  *       stood next to it, running the same rules over the same glob; a measurement showed a
  *       byte-identical list of files. The full justification is in the comment where the removed
  *       step used to be.
- *   `run-mechanical.mjs`, the `tighten-paper/structure` line → CONVERTED to ESLint
- *       (`read: 'eslint'`, filtered by the rules from `eslint-rules/paper-structure.mjs`). Not
- *       deleted: ESLint writes nothing into the ledger, and the ledger is the only place where the
- *       fact "somebody looked at this paper's structure on these bytes" is stored with a hash of the
- *       input.
  *
  * 🔴 A THIRD CALLER THE BANNER DID NOT KNOW ABOUT: `.githooks/pre-commit`. It printed nothing and
  * swallowed the exit code through `|| true`. The lesson is exactly the one already recorded in
@@ -294,11 +289,9 @@ const freeTotal = freeSections.reduce((a, r) => a + r.words, 0);
 // edit, and there is nothing to settle the question of which one is right.
 
 if (flagsOnly) {
-  // Silence and exit code 0 — ALWAYS. Deliberately not one line on stdout/stderr:
-  // `run-mechanical.mjs` reads this mode as `read: 'flags'`, that is, "non-empty output = a
-  // finding", and a pointer saying "the checks have moved" would turn into a permanent false finding
-  // in the ledger. The limitation of this mode is named in the banner at the top; it is cured by
-  // converting both callers to `npx eslint`, not here.
+  // Silence and exit code 0 — ALWAYS. Deliberately not one line on stdout/stderr: a caller that
+  // reads "non-empty output = a finding" would turn a pointer saying "the checks have moved" into a
+  // permanent false finding. The limitation of this mode is named in the banner at the top.
   process.exit(0);
 }