paperlint 4.0.0 → 4.2.0

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:sha256:5283c1dbb4693721 compiled from skills/harden-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:35f1ec023504e0ce compiled from skills/harden-paper/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # harden-paper — the multi-axis pre-submit gate
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent,
 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.
 
-> Axes 1–10 are **soundness** gates (get it accepted / avoid desk-reject). Axis 11 (**citability**) is
+> Axes 1–10 and 12 are **soundness** gates (get it accepted / avoid desk-reject). Axis 11 (**citability**) is
 > the *impact* gate — a correct-but-forgettable paper passes review and gets cited zero times. For a
 > body of work, citability is not optional polish; run it as a gate too.
 
@@ -61,7 +61,8 @@ middle sags" — wasting the polish on possibly-cut sections.
      there with no pointer reaching it, the body is overclaiming and "it's in the appendix" is not
      a defence — reviewers are not required to read appendices, and ARR says so in as many words.
      Rule and the sorting test: `paper-pipeline/references/body-vs-appendix.md`.
-   Mechanical leg: the ESLint rule `paper/uncited-assertion` (axis 7) compiles part of this hunt.
+   Mechanical leg: `tex/claim-provenance` (axis 7) reports every sentence that states a number and
+   does not say whose it is.
 
 3. **Novelty vs the nearest neighbor** — the scoop check. Search for the paper that *already did your
    thing* (`verify-citations` covers metadata; here, actively hunt the closest empirical/method twin).
@@ -114,40 +115,18 @@ middle sags" — wasting the polish on possibly-cut sections.
        to an artifact output or a `\cite`; an untraceable number is treated as fabricated** (source or cut).
        *(This session: "37% growth to 18% cut across independent runs" was in neither — only the artifact
        evaluator caught it.)*
-     - **`npx eslint --no-config-lookup --config eslint.config.mjs <paper-file.tex|.md>`** — the *overclaim*
-       axis (axis 2), compiled. The rule is `paper/uncited-assertion` (`eslint-rules/paper-claims.mjs`); it
-       used to be a hand-run script `check-uncited-assertions.{sh,mjs}`, ported into the rule family on
-       2026-08-27 because the script had to be REMEMBERED and the rule runs with the other 32 in one pass —
-       on all four paper bodies, `.tex` included, not just `paper.md`.
-       It flags any sentence making an empirical/quantitative claim about **prior work** — a number, a `%`, a
-       fuzzy quantifier (`most`/`the majority`/`significantly`), or an empirical verb
-       (`shows`/`demonstrates`/`outperforms`/`reduces`/`improves`/`we find`) — that carries **no citation**.
-       Citation forms recognized: **any `\…cite…` macro** (`\cite`/`\citep`/`\citet`/`\footcite`/`\smartcite`/
-       `\parencite`/`\textcite`/`\citeauthor`/`\citeyearpar`…), `\footnote`, **numeric cites** `[12]`/`[3,4]`/
-       `[1]` (the dominant CS style), a URL, or a markdown `[@key]`/`[^fn]`/`](link)`. This is the exact thing a
-       reviewer pounces on ("[citation needed]"). *Complementary to `check-numbers.sh`, not a dup:* that one
-       traces **every** number; this one flags **empirical assertions lacking a cite** and stays quiet on the
-       paper's own results. **Guards** (so it doesn't false-alarm): years (`2026`), version numbers (`v1.2`,
-       `Node 18`), figure/table/section/equation refs — both literal (`Table 2 shows …`) and cross-ref macros
-       (`Table~\ref{tab:x} shows …`, `\autoref`/`\Cref`), numbers inside math mode, **tabular/array bodies** and
-       **ordered-list markers** (`2.`), **definitions** (`is defined as`/`refers to`/`we define`), and the
-       paper's **OWN reported results**. The own-result guard is a **subject-proximity heuristic** (not a
-       parser): it exempts a sentence only when first person is the *subject* — it **starts** with
-       `we`/`this paper`/`this work`, or has `we <verb>` / `our <contribution-noun>` — so `We find a 6% reduction`
-       passes but a bare `Transformers outperform RNNs by 12%` flags, and, deliberately, `US-based detectors
-       reject 40%` (country "US", not "us") and `Our reading of the literature shows X outperforms Y` (a claim
-       about others) still **flag**. Fix each hit by attaching a cite, reframing honestly as your own result, by
-       cutting the claim — or, for a genuinely defensible one, an `eslint-disable-next-line` **with the reason
-       on the spot**. Contract fixtures live in `fixtures/uncited-assertions-sample.{tex,md}` (annotated
-       MUST/​MUST-NOT-flag cases, incl. the numeric-cite / `\footcite` / `\ref`-float / list-marker / own-result
-       regressions) and are still the rule's test — `eslint-rules/paper-claims.harness.mjs` runs them.
-       *(Severity is `warn` on purpose: both the own-result guard and sentence splitting are **heuristics** —
-       a fixed abbreviation set (`vs.`/`e.g.`/`i.e.`/`et al.`/`cf.`) is protected from false breaks, and on the
-       four committed papers the rule reports 374 findings. Treat volume as advisory, not a hard gate.)*
+     - **`npx paperlint lint`** — the *overclaim* axis (axis 2), compiled, as `tex/claim-provenance`: every
+       sentence of the body that states a number and has no owner — no citation or link, no *we*/*our*, no
+       `\ref` or "Table 2", no named sample ("n = 134", "48 runs") — is reported, because a reader cannot
+       tell a cited finding from the authors' own measurement from a general fact. Fix each hit by saying
+       whose the number is in the sentence, or keep it with an `eslint-disable-next-line` **and the reason
+       on the spot**. What it cannot judge (whether the owner is the right one) is on its page,
+       `docs/rules/tex/claim-provenance.md`. Complementary to `check-numbers.sh`, not a dup: that one traces
+       **every** number to the artifact; this one asks each number's sentence for its owner.
      Enumeration is mechanical; the per-line trace/reconcile stays judgment (prose isn't policy — compile the list).
 
 8. **Writing craft (audience-appropriate language + how it reads)** — run **`grade-paper-writing`** (the
-   9-dim rubric in `../paper-pipeline/references/writing-craft.md`).
+   10-dim rubric in `../paper-pipeline/references/writing-craft.md`).
    🔴 **Invoke it BY NAME with the Skill tool — do not describe the need and hope it fires.**
    Selection of this skill is **not reliable, and not reliably bad either**: the same eight prompts,
    the same description and the same 36 competitors measured **21%** in the morning and **50–54%**
@@ -159,8 +138,9 @@ middle sags" — wasting the polish on possibly-cut sections.
    An explicit call does not depend on selection at all. Without it this axis silently does not run,
    and a hardening pass that skipped its readability axis reports the same "done" as one that ran it.
    **Downstream of axis 0** (don't polish a
-   section slated to be cut). Two hard rules from the AISec session: (a) run the stall pass as a **persona
-   subagent** ("Sam", a non-expert reader), per-section for a dense paper — the rubric SCORE under-fires because a
+   section slated to be cut). Two hard rules from the AISec session: (a) run the stall pass as **both persona
+   subagents** — "Sam", a non-expert engineer, per-section for a dense paper, and the workshop reviewer
+   skimming abstract, introduction and conclusion for whose result each sentence states — the rubric SCORE under-fires because a
    frontier grader knows every term and never stalls (it scored a wall-heavy paper 44/60); the persona inventory,
    not the number, is the gate. (b) **A wall / spec-sheet / coined-jargon-heading HARD-FAILS this axis — it is not
    a "minor" note.** Strip jargon the *target venue's* reviewers won't know (register-calibration: keep field-native
@@ -210,6 +190,23 @@ middle sags" — wasting the polish on possibly-cut sections.
       accrue to the extended/arXiv version. Log the follow-on (fuller taxonomy, bigger corpus, the
       dropped refs) so the citable artifact exists. Put a preprint where people can find and cite it.
 
+12. **Headline results table** — every number in the abstract and in the conclusion appears in ONE
+    table in the body, one row per headline result, with these columns: the result as stated, its
+    **n** (what was counted, and how many), its **ground-truth source** (the authors' own measurement
+    with the section that reports it, a cited work, or a public dataset), any correction applied
+    (multiplicity, a recall floor, a rerun), and the one-line reading the paper draws from it.
+    - **Find:** list every number in the abstract and the conclusion (`check-numbers.sh` enumerates
+      them), then look each one up in the table. A number with no row, a row with no n, or a row with
+      no source is a finding — one per number, not one for the axis.
+    - **Why it is an axis and not a nicety:** a reviewer who cannot tell *"properties of LLMs,
+      statistical observations from repositories, and experimental findings produced by the authors"*
+      apart asks for exactly this — *"a compact table summarizing each headline result, sample size,
+      ground-truth source, correction, and final interpretation"*. Prose cannot carry five attributes
+      per number; the table can, and it gives every headline claim the owner that
+      `tex/claim-provenance` asks of each sentence.
+    - **Fix:** build the table, point the abstract's and the conclusion's numbers at it, and move a
+      number that has no n or no source out of the abstract until it has both.
+
 ## Mechanical submission gates (do these yourself — don't punt to the author)
 
 - **Double-blind hygiene.** Run the mechanical gate — it greps the deny-list across the PDF text +
@@ -247,6 +244,8 @@ ready"** — the gates are orthogonal axes and do not average out. **Ready ⇔ A
   left unresolved;
 - **Nearest-neighbor scoop** — axis 3 answered: the closest sibling found and either distinguished
   or escalated (`analyze-sibling-paper`);
+- **Headline results table** — axis 12: every number in the abstract and the conclusion has a row
+  with its n and its ground-truth source;
 - **The mechanical gates** — de-anon hygiene, page/word-fit, format template.
 
 > 🔴 **Citations and scoop were MISSING from this list until 2026-08-31, and the omission had

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

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ export default experimental_skill({
 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.
 
-> Axes 1–10 are **soundness** gates (get it accepted / avoid desk-reject). Axis 11 (**citability**) is
+> Axes 1–10 and 12 are **soundness** gates (get it accepted / avoid desk-reject). Axis 11 (**citability**) is
 > the *impact* gate — a correct-but-forgettable paper passes review and gets cited zero times. For a
 > body of work, citability is not optional polish; run it as a gate too.
 
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ middle sags" — wasting the polish on possibly-cut sections.
      there with no pointer reaching it, the body is overclaiming and "it's in the appendix" is not
      a defence — reviewers are not required to read appendices, and ARR says so in as many words.
      Rule and the sorting test: \`paper-pipeline/references/body-vs-appendix.md\`.
-   Mechanical leg: the ESLint rule \`paper/uncited-assertion\` (axis 7) compiles part of this hunt.
+   Mechanical leg: \`tex/claim-provenance\` (axis 7) reports every sentence that states a number and
+   does not say whose it is.
 
 3. **Novelty vs the nearest neighbor** — the scoop check. Search for the paper that *already did your
    thing* (\`verify-citations\` covers metadata; here, actively hunt the closest empirical/method twin).
@@ -131,40 +132,18 @@ middle sags" — wasting the polish on possibly-cut sections.
        to an artifact output or a \`\\cite\`; an untraceable number is treated as fabricated** (source or cut).
        *(This session: "37% growth to 18% cut across independent runs" was in neither — only the artifact
        evaluator caught it.)*
-     - **\`npx eslint --no-config-lookup --config eslint.config.mjs <paper-file.tex|.md>\`** — the *overclaim*
-       axis (axis 2), compiled. The rule is \`paper/uncited-assertion\` (\`eslint-rules/paper-claims.mjs\`); it
-       used to be a hand-run script \`check-uncited-assertions.{sh,mjs}\`, ported into the rule family on
-       2026-08-27 because the script had to be REMEMBERED and the rule runs with the other 32 in one pass —
-       on all four paper bodies, \`.tex\` included, not just \`paper.md\`.
-       It flags any sentence making an empirical/quantitative claim about **prior work** — a number, a \`%\`, a
-       fuzzy quantifier (\`most\`/\`the majority\`/\`significantly\`), or an empirical verb
-       (\`shows\`/\`demonstrates\`/\`outperforms\`/\`reduces\`/\`improves\`/\`we find\`) — that carries **no citation**.
-       Citation forms recognized: **any \`\\…cite…\` macro** (\`\\cite\`/\`\\citep\`/\`\\citet\`/\`\\footcite\`/\`\\smartcite\`/
-       \`\\parencite\`/\`\\textcite\`/\`\\citeauthor\`/\`\\citeyearpar\`…), \`\\footnote\`, **numeric cites** \`[12]\`/\`[3,4]\`/
-       \`[1]\` (the dominant CS style), a URL, or a markdown \`[@key]\`/\`[^fn]\`/\`](link)\`. This is the exact thing a
-       reviewer pounces on ("[citation needed]"). *Complementary to \`check-numbers.sh\`, not a dup:* that one
-       traces **every** number; this one flags **empirical assertions lacking a cite** and stays quiet on the
-       paper's own results. **Guards** (so it doesn't false-alarm): years (\`2026\`), version numbers (\`v1.2\`,
-       \`Node 18\`), figure/table/section/equation refs — both literal (\`Table 2 shows …\`) and cross-ref macros
-       (\`Table~\\ref{tab:x} shows …\`, \`\\autoref\`/\`\\Cref\`), numbers inside math mode, **tabular/array bodies** and
-       **ordered-list markers** (\`2.\`), **definitions** (\`is defined as\`/\`refers to\`/\`we define\`), and the
-       paper's **OWN reported results**. The own-result guard is a **subject-proximity heuristic** (not a
-       parser): it exempts a sentence only when first person is the *subject* — it **starts** with
-       \`we\`/\`this paper\`/\`this work\`, or has \`we <verb>\` / \`our <contribution-noun>\` — so \`We find a 6% reduction\`
-       passes but a bare \`Transformers outperform RNNs by 12%\` flags, and, deliberately, \`US-based detectors
-       reject 40%\` (country "US", not "us") and \`Our reading of the literature shows X outperforms Y\` (a claim
-       about others) still **flag**. Fix each hit by attaching a cite, reframing honestly as your own result, by
-       cutting the claim — or, for a genuinely defensible one, an \`eslint-disable-next-line\` **with the reason
-       on the spot**. Contract fixtures live in \`fixtures/uncited-assertions-sample.{tex,md}\` (annotated
-       MUST/​MUST-NOT-flag cases, incl. the numeric-cite / \`\\footcite\` / \`\\ref\`-float / list-marker / own-result
-       regressions) and are still the rule's test — \`eslint-rules/paper-claims.harness.mjs\` runs them.
-       *(Severity is \`warn\` on purpose: both the own-result guard and sentence splitting are **heuristics** —
-       a fixed abbreviation set (\`vs.\`/\`e.g.\`/\`i.e.\`/\`et al.\`/\`cf.\`) is protected from false breaks, and on the
-       four committed papers the rule reports 374 findings. Treat volume as advisory, not a hard gate.)*
+     - **\`npx paperlint lint\`** — the *overclaim* axis (axis 2), compiled, as \`tex/claim-provenance\`: every
+       sentence of the body that states a number and has no owner — no citation or link, no *we*/*our*, no
+       \`\\ref\` or "Table 2", no named sample ("n = 134", "48 runs") — is reported, because a reader cannot
+       tell a cited finding from the authors' own measurement from a general fact. Fix each hit by saying
+       whose the number is in the sentence, or keep it with an \`eslint-disable-next-line\` **and the reason
+       on the spot**. What it cannot judge (whether the owner is the right one) is on its page,
+       \`docs/rules/tex/claim-provenance.md\`. Complementary to \`check-numbers.sh\`, not a dup: that one traces
+       **every** number to the artifact; this one asks each number's sentence for its owner.
      Enumeration is mechanical; the per-line trace/reconcile stays judgment (prose isn't policy — compile the list).
 
 8. **Writing craft (audience-appropriate language + how it reads)** — run **\`grade-paper-writing\`** (the
-   9-dim rubric in \`../paper-pipeline/references/writing-craft.md\`).
+   10-dim rubric in \`../paper-pipeline/references/writing-craft.md\`).
    🔴 **Invoke it BY NAME with the Skill tool — do not describe the need and hope it fires.**
    Selection of this skill is **not reliable, and not reliably bad either**: the same eight prompts,
    the same description and the same 36 competitors measured **21%** in the morning and **50–54%**
@@ -176,8 +155,9 @@ middle sags" — wasting the polish on possibly-cut sections.
    An explicit call does not depend on selection at all. Without it this axis silently does not run,
    and a hardening pass that skipped its readability axis reports the same "done" as one that ran it.
    **Downstream of axis 0** (don't polish a
-   section slated to be cut). Two hard rules from the AISec session: (a) run the stall pass as a **persona
-   subagent** ("Sam", a non-expert reader), per-section for a dense paper — the rubric SCORE under-fires because a
+   section slated to be cut). Two hard rules from the AISec session: (a) run the stall pass as **both persona
+   subagents** — "Sam", a non-expert engineer, per-section for a dense paper, and the workshop reviewer
+   skimming abstract, introduction and conclusion for whose result each sentence states — the rubric SCORE under-fires because a
    frontier grader knows every term and never stalls (it scored a wall-heavy paper 44/60); the persona inventory,
    not the number, is the gate. (b) **A wall / spec-sheet / coined-jargon-heading HARD-FAILS this axis — it is not
    a "minor" note.** Strip jargon the *target venue's* reviewers won't know (register-calibration: keep field-native
@@ -227,6 +207,23 @@ middle sags" — wasting the polish on possibly-cut sections.
       accrue to the extended/arXiv version. Log the follow-on (fuller taxonomy, bigger corpus, the
       dropped refs) so the citable artifact exists. Put a preprint where people can find and cite it.
 
+12. **Headline results table** — every number in the abstract and in the conclusion appears in ONE
+    table in the body, one row per headline result, with these columns: the result as stated, its
+    **n** (what was counted, and how many), its **ground-truth source** (the authors' own measurement
+    with the section that reports it, a cited work, or a public dataset), any correction applied
+    (multiplicity, a recall floor, a rerun), and the one-line reading the paper draws from it.
+    - **Find:** list every number in the abstract and the conclusion (\`check-numbers.sh\` enumerates
+      them), then look each one up in the table. A number with no row, a row with no n, or a row with
+      no source is a finding — one per number, not one for the axis.
+    - **Why it is an axis and not a nicety:** a reviewer who cannot tell *"properties of LLMs,
+      statistical observations from repositories, and experimental findings produced by the authors"*
+      apart asks for exactly this — *"a compact table summarizing each headline result, sample size,
+      ground-truth source, correction, and final interpretation"*. Prose cannot carry five attributes
+      per number; the table can, and it gives every headline claim the owner that
+      \`tex/claim-provenance\` asks of each sentence.
+    - **Fix:** build the table, point the abstract's and the conclusion's numbers at it, and move a
+      number that has no n or no source out of the abstract until it has both.
+
 ## Mechanical submission gates (do these yourself — don't punt to the author)
 
 - **Double-blind hygiene.** Run the mechanical gate — it greps the deny-list across the PDF text +
@@ -264,6 +261,8 @@ ready"** — the gates are orthogonal axes and do not average out. **Ready ⇔ A
   left unresolved;
 - **Nearest-neighbor scoop** — axis 3 answered: the closest sibling found and either distinguished
   or escalated (\`analyze-sibling-paper\`);
+- **Headline results table** — axis 12: every number in the abstract and the conclusion has a row
+  with its n and its ground-truth source;
 - **The mechanical gates** — de-anon hygiene, page/word-fit, format template.
 
 > 🔴 **Citations and scoop were MISSING from this list until 2026-08-31, and the omission had

package/skills/paper-adversarial-review/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ context: fork
 allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Grep, Glob, Agent, Skill]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:68dcbcc1b7ab5348 compiled from skills/paper-adversarial-review/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:fe41e7c71eb4672d compiled from skills/paper-adversarial-review/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # paper-adversarial-review — be the reviewer who wants to reject it
 
@@ -88,6 +88,6 @@ venue + paper type (short/full/position/benchmark). Ask for the structured outpu
 - If the paper is genuinely strong, say so — don't manufacture problems.
 
 ## Compose with
-- `grade-paper-writing` — the Readability/prose axis of the scorecard defers to its 9-dim rubric; run it for the sentence-level fixes behind a low readability score.
+- `grade-paper-writing` — the Readability/prose axis of the scorecard defers to its 10-dim rubric; run it for the sentence-level fixes behind a low readability score.
 - `pc-panel-review` — this atom's scorecard is one reviewer's card; the panel aggregates N of them (same 1–5 scale) into the decision.
 - The venue CFP (fit/format). Prose QA for papers routes to `grade-paper-writing` + `paper-pipeline/references/writing-craft.md` — NOT the site repo's `writing-quality` / `audience-test` skills (those are for blog posts only; the paper suite's persona pass supersedes them here).

package/skills/paper-adversarial-review/SKILL.md.spec.ts

@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ venue + paper type (short/full/position/benchmark). Ask for the structured outpu
 - If the paper is genuinely strong, say so — don't manufacture problems.
 
 ## Compose with
-- \`grade-paper-writing\` — the Readability/prose axis of the scorecard defers to its 9-dim rubric; run it for the sentence-level fixes behind a low readability score.
+- \`grade-paper-writing\` — the Readability/prose axis of the scorecard defers to its 10-dim rubric; run it for the sentence-level fixes behind a low readability score.
 - \`pc-panel-review\` — this atom's scorecard is one reviewer's card; the panel aggregates N of them (same 1–5 scale) into the decision.
 - The venue CFP (fit/format). Prose QA for papers routes to \`grade-paper-writing\` + \`paper-pipeline/references/writing-craft.md\` — NOT the site repo's \`writing-quality\` / \`audience-test\` skills (those are for blog posts only; the paper suite's persona pass supersedes them here).`,
 });

package/skills/paper-pipeline/PIPELINE-MAP.md

@@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ format.
 ## 3. Venue constants belong in a card, not in code
 
 > **Done (#79, 2.1.0), in a different shape than planned below.** The constants live in **venue
-> presets**, JSONC files in `submit-paper/references/venues/`: `acm-sigconf.jsonc` is the ACM
+> presets**, JSONC files in the package's `presets/`: `acm-sigconf.jsonc` is the ACM
 > family (the `format` block — page size, columns, fonts, font sizes — plus the `tex` packages),
 > `agenticdev.jsonc` and `aisec.jsonc` extend it and add their `kinds` (page limits) and `rules`,
 > `realm.jsonc` stands alone. A paper picks one in `<paper>/paperlint.json`
@@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ point. Nothing to check.
 | page limit           | **4**           | `venues/realm.md` 8 · `build-submission.sh` 8 · `PIPELINE-STATUS` "8/8" · the build prints **9**                                      |
 | the TeX package list | **5**           | `ensure-toolchain.sh` (executable) · `SKILL.md` · `render-paper.harness.mjs` (pins it ✅) · `build-submission.sh` · `PIPELINE-STATUS` |
 
-The canonical source is the venue preset (`venues/<name>.jsonc`, resolved through its `extends`
+The canonical source is the venue preset (`presets/<name>.jsonc`, resolved through its `extends`
 chain): its `format` block for the numbers (page size, columns, fonts, font sizes, and `kinds` for
 page limits), its `tex` block (plus `tex-base.jsonc`) for packages — since 2026-09-24;
 `ensure-toolchain.sh` held them until then — and its `rules` block for the checks the venue

package/skills/paper-pipeline/SKILL.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ description: The orchestrator for writing a research paper end-to-end, from idea
 allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent, Skill]
 ---
 
-<!-- vigiles:sha256:a15a3fcf5fdfedf7 compiled from skills/paper-pipeline/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
+<!-- vigiles:sha256:805b94a3515406d7 compiled from skills/paper-pipeline/SKILL.md.spec.ts -->
 
 # paper-pipeline — the conductor for the whole organism
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ of that — who is filing what, and when — stays in the author's own private n
 - `references/artifact-checklist.md` — the self-checking reproduction artifact.
 - `references/anonymization.md` — the double-blind deny-list + hygiene (and its reverse at camera-ready).
 - `references/writing-craft.md` — how well-written papers read (craft rules + exemplar lessons + the
-  gradeable 9-dim writing rubric); cited by `draft-paper`, `grade-paper-writing`, and `harden-paper`.
+  gradeable 10-dim writing rubric); cited by `draft-paper`, `grade-paper-writing`, and `harden-paper`.
 - `references/review-ratchet.md` — how to fix a caught overclaim (tighten → cut → Threats → hedge)
   and why every review round must be paid back with a `tighten-paper` pass; cited by
   `paper-adversarial-review`, `pc-panel-review`, `harden-paper`.
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ of that — who is filing what, and when — stays in the author's own private n
   space, anonymity, OpenReview mechanics. Fetch once, not per paper. Venue-specific facts stay in
   `submit-paper/references/venues/<venue>.md`. (No prose equivalent yet for ACM or IEEE — write one
   when the next paper goes there. ACM's machine-checked format already exists: the
-  `paperlint:acm-sigconf` preset, `submit-paper/references/venues/acm-sigconf.jsonc`.)
+  `paperlint:acm-sigconf` preset, `presets/acm-sigconf.jsonc` in the package.)
 
 ## The readiness scorecard (which boxes are checked)
 Stages run in subagents and report into chat, which evaporates — so "did everything run?" becomes
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ skill: 🔴 **argument architecture** — does the whole thing carry the reader
 nobody's) · **content strength** — does the contribution clear *this venue's* bar (`study-accepted-papers`,
 mines the accepted corpus for Accept→Strong levers; in SETUP, before the prose is set) ·
 **scientific defects** — what a hostile reviewer attacks (`paper-adversarial-review` / `pc-panel-review`)
-· **writing craft** — does it read like a human wrote it (`grade-paper-writing`, the 9-dim rubric in
+· **writing craft** — does it read like a human wrote it (`grade-paper-writing`, the 10-dim rubric in
 `references/writing-craft.md`; called by `harden-paper`). A paper can ace one and fail another — grade all four.
 **The arc axis comes first**, because tightening length and polishing sentences inside a broken arc is
 how a day disappears and the same paper ships.

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

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ of that — who is filing what, and when — stays in the author's own private n
 - \`references/artifact-checklist.md\` — the self-checking reproduction artifact.
 - \`references/anonymization.md\` — the double-blind deny-list + hygiene (and its reverse at camera-ready).
 - \`references/writing-craft.md\` — how well-written papers read (craft rules + exemplar lessons + the
-  gradeable 9-dim writing rubric); cited by \`draft-paper\`, \`grade-paper-writing\`, and \`harden-paper\`.
+  gradeable 10-dim writing rubric); cited by \`draft-paper\`, \`grade-paper-writing\`, and \`harden-paper\`.
 - \`references/review-ratchet.md\` — how to fix a caught overclaim (tighten → cut → Threats → hedge)
   and why every review round must be paid back with a \`tighten-paper\` pass; cited by
   \`paper-adversarial-review\`, \`pc-panel-review\`, \`harden-paper\`.
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ of that — who is filing what, and when — stays in the author's own private n
   space, anonymity, OpenReview mechanics. Fetch once, not per paper. Venue-specific facts stay in
   \`submit-paper/references/venues/<venue>.md\`. (No prose equivalent yet for ACM or IEEE — write one
   when the next paper goes there. ACM's machine-checked format already exists: the
-  \`paperlint:acm-sigconf\` preset, \`submit-paper/references/venues/acm-sigconf.jsonc\`.)
+  \`paperlint:acm-sigconf\` preset, \`presets/acm-sigconf.jsonc\` in the package.)
 
 ## The readiness scorecard (which boxes are checked)
 Stages run in subagents and report into chat, which evaporates — so "did everything run?" becomes
@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ skill: 🔴 **argument architecture** — does the whole thing carry the reader
 nobody's) · **content strength** — does the contribution clear *this venue's* bar (\`study-accepted-papers\`,
 mines the accepted corpus for Accept→Strong levers; in SETUP, before the prose is set) ·
 **scientific defects** — what a hostile reviewer attacks (\`paper-adversarial-review\` / \`pc-panel-review\`)
-· **writing craft** — does it read like a human wrote it (\`grade-paper-writing\`, the 9-dim rubric in
+· **writing craft** — does it read like a human wrote it (\`grade-paper-writing\`, the 10-dim rubric in
 \`references/writing-craft.md\`; called by \`harden-paper\`). A paper can ace one and fail another — grade all four.
 **The arc axis comes first**, because tightening length and polishing sentences inside a broken arc is
 how a day disappears and the same paper ships.

package/skills/paper-pipeline/grade-paper-writing-ablation.eval.mjs

@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
  *
  *   A0  baseline          verbatim. The control.
  *   A1  short             keep sentence 1 ("Use when asking …") and sentence 2 ("Grades WRITING CRAFT
- *                         only — nine dimensions … the fix for each."). Delete everything after.
+ *                         only — ten dimensions … the fix for each."). Delete everything after.
  *                         1174 -> ~530 chars. The blunt arm: does ANY deletion revive it?
  *   A2  no-subordination  delete ONLY the two clauses announcing that this skill is a SUBROUTINE of
  *                         other skills: "whose stall inventory … is the readability gate other skills
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@
  *                         deferring — declining to call a thing that presents itself as something
  *                         another skill calls. No other skill in the roster says this about itself.
  *   A3  no-negation       delete ONLY the sentence carrying the "NOT …" delegation clauses.
- *   A4  no-machinery      delete ONLY the opaque internals and proper nouns: the nine-dimension
+ *   A4  no-machinery      delete ONLY the opaque internals and proper nouns: the ten-dimension
  *                         parenthetical, the "(Peyton Jones, McEnerney, Gopen & Swan; exemplars …)"
  *                         authorities, the PERSONA sentence and the blind-panel/claims-diff sentence.
  *                         Keeps sentence 1 and the NOT-clauses.
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@
  *                         "grade-paper-writing" reads as a niche in-house verb the selector skips.
  *                         The only arm that changes nothing about the description text.
  *   A6  persona-only      ADDED AFTER A0-A5 RAN, on request, and it is A1's MIRROR. The skill has two
- *                         jobs — a nine-dimension rubric and a persona cold-read stall pass — and A1
+ *                         jobs — a ten-dimension rubric and a persona cold-read stall pass — and A1
  *                         as specified keeps the rubric sentence and deletes the persona one, so the
  *                         six-arm design had a rubric-only description and no persona-only twin. A6 is
  *                         that twin: the opening sentence (minus the `"grade the writing"` trigger,
@@ -518,9 +518,9 @@ const D_NEGATION = [
   " 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).",
 ];
 const D_MACHINERY = [
-  " (Title, Abstract, Intro architecture, Structure, Prose clarity, Jargon discipline, Landing-the-point, Figure economy, Honesty-without-hedge-stacking)",
+  " (Title, Abstract, Intro architecture, Structure, Prose clarity, Jargon discipline, Landing-the-point, Figure economy, Honesty-without-hedge-stacking, Register distance to the target venue)",
   " (Peyton Jones, McEnerney, Gopen & Swan; exemplars Trusting Trust, Carlini, Greshake)",
-  " 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).",
+  " Runs the cold-read stall pass with TWO committed personas (a non-academic engineer per section, and a workshop reviewer skimming abstract, introduction and conclusion) 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`).",
 ];
 // NOTE ON "FOUR NOT-CLAUSES": the description carries THREE uppercase "NOT …" delegation clauses
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ const applyCuts = (s, cuts) => {
 // its subordination tail removed — see the header for why that tail goes.
 const D_PERSONA_ONLY = [
   ' / "grade the writing"',
-  " 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.",
+  " Grades WRITING CRAFT only — ten dimensions 1–5 (Title, Abstract, Intro architecture, Structure, Prose clarity, Jargon discipline, Landing-the-point, Figure economy, Honesty-without-hedge-stacking, Register distance to the target venue) against how the best-written papers read (Peyton Jones, McEnerney, Gopen & Swan; exemplars Trusting Trust, Carlini, Greshake) AND against 2–3 accepted papers of the target venue, naming the offending sentence and the fix for each.",
   " 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).",

package/skills/paper-pipeline/references/writing-craft.md

@@ -79,10 +79,13 @@ attributed to Kent Beck — treat as widely-cited, not primary-verified.)
 - **MapReduce** — "Simplified" in the title = the reader's _benefit_ as the promise; clean topic sentences;
   motivating example before mechanism.
 
-## The gradeable rubric — 9 dimensions, score 1–5 (anchors), most-severe first
+## The gradeable rubric — 10 dimensions, score 1–5 (anchors), most-severe first
 
-For the "wall of jargon" failure mode, **weight #5 Prose, #6 Jargon, #7 Landing-the-point ×2.** Score each,
-name the offending sentence/section, write the fix.
+For the "wall of jargon" failure mode, **weight #5 Prose, #6 Jargon, #7 Landing-the-point ×2**; for the
+"blog post" failure mode, **weight #10 Register ×2** as well. Score each, name the offending
+sentence/section, write the fix. Dimensions #1–#9 push toward plain and memorable; #10 is the floor
+under them — a fix that raises one of them by leaving the venue's register lowers #10, and the
+grade says so.
 
 1. **Title — value + memorability.** 1 = generic topic label, forgettable. 5 = states the finding or the
    reader's benefit and is quotable; repeatable after one read.
@@ -91,7 +94,7 @@ name the offending sentence/section, write the fix.
 3. **Intro architecture — problem/why-care/contribution/evidence, fast.** 1 = background/lit-tour, point
    arrives on page 2–3. 5 = SPJ arc in the first half-page + a bulleted, forward-referenced contributions list.
 4. **Structure & signposting (incl. visual density).** 1 = arbitrary order, paragraphs open mid-thought,
-   boilerplate roadmap, OR a wall — one giant unbroken paragraph the reader's eye slides off. 5 = each
+   no signposting between claims (the reader must infer how one claim relates to the next), OR a wall — one giant unbroken paragraph the reader's eye slides off. 5 = each
    section one job, every paragraph's first sentence is its claim, forward refs not a roadmap, AND no wall:
    long related-work / discussion blocks are broken into scannable chunks with bold/italic run-in sub-heads
    (see the wall-of-text check below).
@@ -115,6 +118,14 @@ validity`, `null`, `coarse`, coined handles) used with no plain-words gloss —
    self-contained. 5 = one "money figure" a skim-reader understands alone; self-contained captions; tables show the one comparison that matters.
 9. **Honesty without hedge-stacking.** 1 = overclaims OR drowns in hedges + defensive early related-work
    wall. 5 = explicit "what we do NOT claim," one clean threats-to-validity move, related work at the end as context.
+10. **Register distance to the target venue — graded against 2–3 accepted papers of that venue (or its
+    parent conference), never against the exemplars above.** 1 = reads as another genre: aphorisms and
+    punchline closings, fragments, colloquial asides, claims with no stated owner, relations between
+    claims left for the reader to infer. 5 = a reviewer at the venue could not tell it from the
+    reference papers by register: results owned (_we measured_, a citation, a named population),
+    relations signposted (_therefore_, _in contrast_, _this section_), sentences complete. Every flag
+    quotes the reference sentence it was compared against. No reference papers → not graded, and the
+    report says so; this dimension is never scored from memory.
 
 ## Scoring calibration — how to avoid an inflated grade (read before scoring)
 
@@ -175,6 +186,25 @@ bucket-1 field terms and trips on buckets 2–3. Optionally also run it on a **d
 lacks the vocabulary for real (not by role-play) and stalls even more like a human. The persona's inventory feeds
 straight into the fix pass.
 
+**Run the second persona too — the workshop reviewer. Both, never one instead of the other.** Sam cannot see two
+defects by construction: he does not know what a paper at this venue sounds like, and a sentence with no stated
+owner reads to him as confident rather than ambiguous. Those are exactly the two a real reviewer wrote down
+("difficult at first to distinguish among properties of LLMs, statistical observations from repositories, and
+experimental findings produced by the authors"; "blogpost"). Spawn a second fresh subagent:
+
+> You are a program-committee member at <venue>. You review for it every year, you have eleven papers this
+> round, and you have 40 minutes for this one. Your confidence will be 3: you know the area, not this exact
+> topic. Read the abstract, then the introduction, then the conclusion — nothing else. For EVERY sentence ask:
+> whose result does this state — the authors' own measurement, a cited work, or a general property of the
+> world? If you cannot tell, quote it and write WHOSE?. Where two sentences sit side by side and you have to
+> work out yourself how they relate, quote the pair and write RELATION?. Where a sentence would not appear in
+> a paper at <venue> — an aphorism, a punchline, a fragment, a colloquial turn — quote it and write REGISTER.
+> Then give the overall recommendation you would write after these 40 minutes, and the one sentence of your
+> review a chair would read first. Output the list and the recommendation only.
+
+Its WHOSE? / RELATION? / REGISTER lines go into the stall inventory as classes 7 and 8 of `grade-paper-writing`.
+Give it the three sections as text, and no framing: it is a reviewer who has not talked to the authors.
+
 **Run the persona PER SECTION for a dense or long (>~6pp) paper — never one whole-paper pass.** A single pass over
 a full paper skims the middle: this session a whole-paper sweep scored 44/60 and missed the walls that per-section
 persona reads (intro, method, results) each caught immediately. Chunk it to 2–3pp / one section per subagent, so
@@ -233,16 +263,18 @@ of `rm -rf` collapses to one"), a triple-nested-em-dash sentence you parse twice
 (the author's rule: don't open on the spec sheet.) When unsure which bucket a term is in, ask: _would a reviewer at THIS
 venue use it, or is it imported from stats/philosophy/our own coinage?_
 
-**De-jargon is RE-VOICING the sentence, not swapping the word.** Replacing a coined term with a plainer noun inside
-an otherwise stiff academic sentence leaves the sentence academic — the reader still stalls on the _register_, not
-just the word (GateBench 2026-07-25: a term-level de-jargon pass cleared the flagged words but the author still hit
-sections "way too academicy for 0 reason"). The fix: rewrite the whole SENTENCE the way you'd say it to a colleague
-at a whiteboard — subject–verb–object, active voice, one clause, contractions fine, no nominalizations ("performs
-an evaluation of" → "checks"). **Read each rewritten sentence ALOUD: if you'd never say it that way to a person,
-it's still academic.** E.g. "We therefore position the guard as a defense against trigger~A and a measurement
-instrument, not an injection defense" → "So the guard is there to catch accidents and to measure the problem — it
-is not built to stop an attacker." A word-swap that leaves the academic sentence shape is a HALF-fix; the
-deliverable is plain-spoken sentences, and a de-jargon/tighten pass is not done until the prose reads spoken.
+**De-jargon is RE-VOICING the sentence, not swapping the word — and the new voice is the venue's, not
+a conversation's.** Replacing a coined term with a plainer noun inside a sentence built around nominalizations
+leaves the stall in place (GateBench 2026-07-25: a term-level de-jargon pass cleared the flagged words but the
+author still hit sections "way too academicy for 0 reason"). The fix is the sentence shape: subject–verb–object,
+active voice, the actor named, no nominalizations ("performs an evaluation of" → "checks"). **The fix stops at the
+register of the venue's accepted papers:** no contractions, no fragments, no colloquial asides, and the signposting
+stays (_therefore_, _in contrast_, _we show_). E.g. "We therefore position the guard as a defense against
+trigger~A and a measurement instrument, not an injection defense" → "The guard is therefore a defense against
+accidental triggers and an instrument for measuring them; it is not designed to stop an attacker." — plainer,
+and still a sentence the venue prints. "So the guard is there to catch accidents — it is not built to stop an
+attacker" goes one step too far: it is what a reviewer quotes back as informal. Test each rewrite against a
+sentence from the reference papers of dimension #10, not against how it sounds aloud.
 
 **Step 0 — mechanical pre-scan (BEFORE reading, so the pass can't rubber-stamp).** Run the coined-compound
 grep from the avoid-list against the source and add EVERY hit to the stall inventory as a candidate; grep the
@@ -376,9 +408,11 @@ axis that catches "the conclusion isn't strong enough."
 
 ## The avoid-list — words that read as slop or stall a human (flag every hit)
 
-The north star: **a paper should be engaging and human-readable — write for a smart non-specialist who will
-read it willingly, not to sound academic.** The test (the author's 10-second rule): would a strong engineer who is
-NOT a researcher get this sentence in 10 seconds? If not, it's too dense. The jargon dimension (#6) and the
+The north star: **a paper should be readable by a smart non-specialist AND read as a paper at its venue —
+plain where plainness costs nothing, academic where the register expects it.** Two tests, both apply: would a
+strong engineer who is NOT a researcher get this sentence in 10 seconds? If not, it's too dense. Would it sit
+unremarked in one of the venue's accepted papers (dimension #10)? If not, it's too loose — a replacement that
+passes the first test by failing the second is not a fix. The jargon dimension (#6) and the
 stall pass are the judgment; the list below is the _checkable_ part (prose isn't policy — compile what's
 mechanical). These are **scrutinize-words, not absolute bans** (some are legit in context — "significant" for
 a real stat, "method"); on every hit, ask "does this earn its place, or is it slop / hype / a reader-stall?"
@@ -435,7 +469,8 @@ number, so the paper does not have to print them all — divide the labor:
 
 1. **DO lead with the concrete crazy instance, not the aggregate stat** (Carlini's UUID).
 2. **DO manufacture the "wait, what?" pivot** — surface the held assumption, then break it (Greshake).
-3. **DO write the intro as the SPJ arc + a bulleted, forward-referenced contributions list**; kill the "organized as follows" roadmap.
+3. **DO write the intro as the SPJ arc + a bulleted, forward-referenced contributions list**; keep an
+   "organized as follows" paragraph only when the venue's accepted papers carry one.
 4. **DON'T imitate Attention-style dense contribution-less prose** unless the audience already cares.
 5. **DON'T stack jargon or hedges** — gloss every term plainly at first use; replace hedge-piles with one
    precise scope sentence; land one repeatable moral (Trusting Trust).

package/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/consumer.d.mts

@@ -32,8 +32,6 @@ export interface SkillsFs {
 }
 export declare function installedSkills(dir: string, fs?: SkillsFs): string[];
 
-/** The directory of venue TeX files this package ships; `paperlint build` prepends it to TEXINPUTS. */
-export declare function packageVenuesDir(): string;
 export declare const SHIPPED_SKILLS_DIR: string;
 export declare const PACKAGE_NAME: "paperlint";
 export declare const BIN_FILE: "bin/paperlint.mjs";

package/skills/paper-pipeline/scripts/consumer.mjs

@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ import {
   statSync,
 } from "node:fs";
 import { join, resolve, sep } from "node:path";
-import { fileURLToPath, pathToFileURL } from "node:url";
+import { pathToFileURL } from "node:url";
 
 // Re-exported, not re-declared — see the note in `lib/paper-config.mjs`. This file is not a hook
 // and never needed its own copy.
@@ -98,20 +98,6 @@ export function consumerRoot({ env = process.env, cwd = process.cwd() } = {}) {
   return env.CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR || cwd;
 }
 
-/**
- * The directory of venue TeX files THIS PACKAGE ships — `paper-guards.tex` and each venue's
- * `<venue>.tex` — which a paper's preamble `\input`s and `paperlint build` puts on `TEXINPUTS`.
- *
- * Resolved from this file's own location, never from the caller's cwd: the directory travels
- * with the package, wherever the package is installed (own checkout, `node_modules`, a plugin
- * cache). `import.meta.url` is the realpath, so a symlinked skills directory changes nothing.
- */
-export function packageVenuesDir() {
-  return fileURLToPath(
-    new URL("../../submit-paper/references/venues", import.meta.url),
-  );
-}
-
 /**
  * The package's npm name — the directory it lands in under `node_modules`, and the name Node
  * resolves it by. Every path into the installed package is built from this, never re-spelled;