Pre-Submission Report

Aggregates all quality checks into one dated report. Run before submitting to a journal/conference or sharing with collaborators.

When to Use

• Before submitting a paper to a venue
• Before sharing a draft with supervisors or co-authors
• When the user says "pre-submission check", "is this ready?", "run everything"

Input

• A .tex file path, or auto-detect paper/main.tex in the current project

Critical Rule

Python: Always use uv run python or uv pip install. Never bare python, python3, pip, or pip3. Include this in any sub-agent prompts.

Steps

1. Locate the Paper

If no argument provided, search for the main .tex file:

1. Check paper/main.tex
2. Check paper/*.tex for a file containing \begin{document}
3. Ask the user if ambiguous

2. Run Quality Checks

Run these sequentially (each depends on a clean state):

1. Compilation — invoke /latex-autofix on the main .tex file. Record pass/fail and any remaining warnings.
2. Citation audit — invoke /bib-validate. Record missing, unused, and suspect keys.
3. Adversarial review — launch paper-critic agent (via Task tool). Capture the CRITIC-REPORT.md score and findings.

3. Aggregate Report

Save to audits/quality-reports/YYYY-MM-DD_<project-name>.md:

# Pre-Submission Quality Report

**Project:** <project name>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**File:** <path to main.tex>
**Target:** <venue from project CLAUDE.md, or "not specified">

---

## Overall Score: XX/100 — [Verdict]

Verdict uses the quality scoring framework:
- 90-100: Publication-ready
- 80-89: Minor revisions needed
- 70-79: Significant revisions needed
- Below 70: Not ready

---

## Compilation

- **Status:** PASS / FAIL
- **Warnings:** <count>
- **Details:** <brief summary of any issues>

## Citations

- **Missing keys:** <count> — <list>
- **Unused keys:** <count> — <list>
- **Suspect entries:** <count> — <list>

## Adversarial Review

- **Score:** XX/100
- **Key findings:**
  - <finding 1>
  - <finding 2>
  - ...

## Research Quality Score

Load `skills/shared/research-quality-rubric.md` and report the weighted aggregate (X.X / 5.0) with verdict.

## Remaining Issues

| # | Severity | Category | Issue |
|---|----------|----------|-------|
| 1 | High/Medium/Low | Compilation/Citation/Content | <description> |

## Recommendation

**[Submit / Revise / Not ready]**

<1-2 sentence summary of what needs to happen before submission>

4. Present Summary

Display the report path and the summary table to the user. If the recommendation is "Submit", congratulate. If "Revise", list the top 3 issues to fix first.

Error Handling

• If compilation fails after /latex-autofix, still run the remaining checks. Mark compilation as FAIL in the report.
• If paper-critic agent fails, note it in the report and base the overall score on compilation + citations only.
• Always produce the report file, even if some checks failed.

Integration

Skill/Agent	Role in this workflow
/latex-autofix	Compilation + auto-fix
/bib-validate	Citation cross-reference
paper-critic agent	Adversarial content review
quality-scoring.md	Verdict thresholds