Paper Audit Skill (论文审核)

Unified academic paper auditing across formats and languages.

Critical Rules

1. NEVER modify \cite{}, \ref{}, \label{}, math environments in LaTeX
2. NEVER modify @cite, #cite(), #ref(), <label> in Typst
3. NEVER fabricate bibliography entries — only verify existing .bib/.yml files
4. NEVER change domain terminology without user confirmation
5. Check FORBIDDEN_TERMS lists before suggesting any terminology changes
6. For PDF input, clearly flag sections where extraction quality is uncertain
7. Always distinguish between automated findings and LLM-judgment scores

Audit Modes

Mode: self-check (Pre-submission Self-Check)

Trigger keywords: audit, check, self-check, pre-submission, score, review my paper

What it does: Runs all automated checks and generates a structured report with:

• Per-dimension scores (Quality, Clarity, Significance, Originality) on 1-6 scale
• Issue list sorted by severity (Critical > Major > Minor)
• Improvement suggestions per section
• Pre-submission checklist results

CLI: python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode self-check

Mode: review (Peer Review Simulation)

Trigger keywords: simulate review, peer review, reviewer perspective, what would reviewers say

What it does: Everything in self-check PLUS:

• Paper summary from reviewer perspective
• Strengths analysis
• Weaknesses analysis with severity
• Questions a reviewer would ask
• Accept/reject recommendation with confidence

CLI: python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode review

Mode: gate (Quality Gate)

Trigger keywords: quality gate, pass/fail, can I submit, ready to submit, advisor check

What it does: Fast mandatory checks only:

• Format validation
• Bibliography integrity
• Figure/table references
• Pre-submission checklist
• Binary PASS/FAIL verdict with blocking issues

CLI: python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode gate

Supported Formats

Format	Parser	Notes
LaTeX (.tex)	LatexParser	Full support — all checks available
Typst (.typ)	TypstParser	Full support — all checks available
PDF (.pdf) basic	PdfParser (pymupdf)	Text extraction with font-size heading detection
PDF (.pdf) enhanced	PdfParser (pymupdf4llm)	Structured Markdown with table/header preservation

PDF Limitations: Math formulas may be lost; some checks (format, figures) skip for PDF. Recommend providing source files (.tex/.typ) for maximum accuracy.

Language Support

Language	Detection	Extra Checks
English	Auto (default)	Standard suite
Chinese	Auto (CJK ratio > 30%)	+ consistency check, + GB/T 7714 compliance

Force with --lang en or --lang zh.

Check Modules

Module	Script Source	Dimensions Affected	Applicable Formats
Format Check	check_format.py	Clarity	.tex, .typ
Grammar Analysis	analyze_grammar.py	Clarity	.tex, .typ, .pdf
Logic & Coherence	analyze_logic.py	Quality, Significance	.tex, .typ, .pdf
Sentence Complexity	analyze_sentences.py	Clarity	.tex, .typ, .pdf
De-AI Detection	deai_check.py	Clarity, Originality	.tex, .typ, .pdf
Bibliography	verify_bib.py	Quality	.tex, .typ
Figure/Table Refs	check_figures.py	Clarity	.tex
Consistency (ZH)	check_consistency.py	Clarity	.tex (Chinese only)
GB/T 7714 (ZH)	verify_bib.py (GB mode)	Quality	.tex (Chinese only)
Pre-submission Checklist	Built-in	All	All formats

Scoring System

Based on REVIEWER_PERSPECTIVE.md criteria:

Four Dimensions

• Quality (30%): Technical soundness, well-supported claims
• Clarity (30%): Clear writing, reproducible, good organization
• Significance (20%): Community impact, advances understanding
• Originality (20%): New insights, not obvious extensions

Six-Point Scale (NeurIPS standard)

Score	Rating	Meaning
5.5-6.0	Strong Accept	Groundbreaking, technically flawless
4.5-5.4	Accept	Technically solid, high impact
3.5-4.4	Borderline Accept	Solid but limited evaluation/novelty
2.5-3.4	Borderline Reject	Merits but weaknesses outweigh
1.5-2.4	Reject	Technical flaws, insufficient evaluation
1.0-1.4	Strong Reject	Fundamental errors or known results

Output Protocol

All issues follow the unified format:

[MODULE] (Line N) [Severity: Critical|Major|Minor] [Priority: P0|P1|P2]: Issue description
  Original: ...
  Revised:  ...
  Rationale: ...

• Severity: Critical (must fix), Major (should fix), Minor (nice to fix)
• Priority: P0 (blocking), P1 (important), P2 (low priority)

Workflow

When a user requests a paper audit:

1. Identify the file — locate the .tex, .typ, or .pdf file
2. Determine mode — self-check (default), review, or gate based on user intent
3. Run the orchestrator — python scripts/audit.py <file> --mode <mode>
4. Present the report — show the Markdown report to the user
5. Discuss findings — help the user address Critical and Major issues first
6. Re-audit if needed — run again after fixes to verify improvements

For review mode, supplement the automated report with LLM analysis of:

• Overall paper strengths (what works well)
• Key weaknesses (what reviewers would criticize)
• Questions a reviewer would ask
• Missing related work or baselines