Paper Writing

Workflow 3: Paper Writing Pipeline

Orchestrate a complete paper writing workflow for: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

This skill chains five sub-skills into a single automated pipeline:

/paper-plan → /paper-figure → /paper-write → /paper-compile → /auto-paper-improvement-loop
  (outline)     (plots)        (LaTeX)        (build PDF)       (review & polish ×2)

Each phase builds on the previous one's output. The final deliverable is a polished, reviewed paper/ directory with LaTeX source and compiled PDF.

In this hybrid pack, the pipeline itself is unchanged, but paper-plan and paper-write use Orchestra-adapted shared references for stronger story framing and prose guidance.

Constants

• VENUE = ICLR — Target venue. Options: ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR, ACL, AAAI, ACM, IEEE_JOURNAL (IEEE Transactions / Letters), IEEE_CONF (IEEE conferences). Affects style file, page limit, citation format.
• MAX_IMPROVEMENT_ROUNDS = 2 — Number of review→fix→recompile rounds in the improvement loop.
• REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-6-astra — Model used via Codex MCP for plan review, figure review, writing review, and improvement loop.
• AUTO_PROCEED = true — Auto-continue between phases. Set false to pause and wait for user approval after each phase.
• HUMAN_CHECKPOINT = false — When true, the improvement loop (Phase 5) pauses after each round's review to let you see the score and provide custom modification instructions. When false (default), the loop runs fully autonomously. Passed through to /auto-paper-improvement-loop.
• ILLUSTRATION = figurespec — Architecture/illustration generator for Phase 2b: figurespec (default, deterministic JSON→SVG via /figure-spec, best for architecture/workflow/topology), gemini (AI-generated via /paper-illustration, best for qualitative method illustrations; needs GEMINI_API_KEY), codex-image2 (AI-generated via /paper-illustration-image2 through the local Codex native image bridge — no external API key, uses your ChatGPT Plus/Pro quota; experimental), mermaid (Mermaid syntax via /mermaid-diagram, free, best for flowcharts), or false (skip Phase 2b, manual only).

Override inline: /paper-writing "NARRATIVE_REPORT.md" — venue: NeurIPS, illustration: gemini, human checkpoint: true IEEE example: /paper-writing "NARRATIVE_REPORT.md" — venue: IEEE_JOURNAL

Inputs

This pipeline accepts one of:

1. NARRATIVE_REPORT.md (best) — structured research narrative with claims, experiments, results, figures
2. Research direction + experiment results — the skill will help draft the narrative first
3. Existing PAPER_PLAN.md — skip Phase 1, start from Phase 1.5 (the contract negotiation still runs; only resuming a genuine pre-1.5 legacy run may skip it, and then Phase 6.0's row 0 records "no contract")

The more detailed the input (especially figure descriptions and quantitative results), the better the output.

Optional: Style reference (— style-ref: <source>, opt-in)

Lets the user steer structural style (section ordering, theorem density, sentence cadence, figure density, bibliography style) of the generated paper toward a reference paper they admire. Default OFF — when the user does not pass — style-ref, do nothing differently from before.

When — style-ref: <source> is in $ARGUMENTS, run the helper FIRST, before Phase 1 (paper-plan):

# Resolve $STYLE_HELPER via the canonical strict-safe chain (see
# shared-references/integration-contract.md §2). Policy A — gate:
# unresolved helper means --style-ref cannot be satisfied, so abort.
cd "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)" || exit 1
if [ -z "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f .aris/installed-skills.txt ]; then
    ARIS_REPO=$(awk -F'\t' '$1=="repo_root"{print $2; exit}' .aris/installed-skills.txt 2>/dev/null) || true
fi
if [ -z "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f "$HOME/.aris/repo" ]; then
    ARIS_REPO=$(cat "$HOME/.aris/repo" 2>/dev/null) || true
fi
STYLE_HELPER=".aris/tools/extract_paper_style.py"
[ -f "$STYLE_HELPER" ] || STYLE_HELPER="tools/extract_paper_style.py"
[ -f "$STYLE_HELPER" ] || { [ -n "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && STYLE_HELPER="$ARIS_REPO/tools/extract_paper_style.py"; }
[ -f "$STYLE_HELPER" ] || {
  echo "ERROR: extract_paper_style.py not resolved at .aris/tools/, tools/, \$ARIS_REPO/tools/, or via ~/.aris/repo." >&2
  echo "       Fix: rerun bash tools/install_aris.sh or smart_update.sh (refreshes ~/.aris/repo), export ARIS_REPO, or copy the helper to tools/." >&2
  echo "       --style-ref cannot be satisfied; aborting." >&2
  exit 1
}
STYLE_STATUS=0
CACHE=$(python3 "$STYLE_HELPER" --source "<source>") || STYLE_STATUS=$?
case "$STYLE_STATUS" in
  0) ;;                                       # share $CACHE/style_profile.md with downstream WRITER phases only
  2) echo "warning: style-ref skipped (missing optional dep)" >&2 ;;
  3) echo "error: --style-ref source failed; aborting pipeline" >&2 ; exit 1 ;;
  *) echo "error: helper failed unexpectedly; aborting pipeline" >&2 ; exit 1 ;;
esac

Then forward — style-ref: <source> only to the writer-side sub-skills:

• /paper-plan (Phase 1) — outline structure
• /paper-write (Phase 3) — section-by-section prose
• /paper-illustration (Phase 2b) — figure structural matching, optional

Sources accepted: local TeX dir / file, local PDF, arXiv id, http(s) URL. Overleaf URLs/IDs are rejected — clone via /overleaf-sync setup <id> first and pass the local clone path.

Strict rules (full contract in tools/extract_paper_style.py docstring):

• Use style_profile.md as structural guidance only. Match section-count tendency, theorem density, caption-length distribution, sentence cadence, math display ratio, citation style.
• Never copy prose, claims, examples, or terminology from anything reachable through the cache.
• Never pass — style-ref (or the cache contents) to reviewer / auditor sub-skills — Phase 4.5 (/proof-checker), Phase 4.7 / 5.5 (/paper-claim-audit), Phase 5 (/auto-paper-improvement-loop reviewer), Phase 5.8 (/citation-audit) MUST run on the artifact alone. Cross-model review independence (../shared-references/reviewer-independence.md).

Pipeline

Phase 0: Assurance Setup

Resolve the active assurance level and persist it so Phase 6's external verifier reads the same value. Run once at pipeline start, before Phase 1.

Resolution order (first match wins):

1. Explicit — assurance: draft | submission in $ARGUMENTS
2. Derived from — effort:
   • lite / balanced → draft (default, zero change from current behavior)
   • max / beast → submission
3. Default: draft

Action:

mkdir -p paper/.aris
echo "<resolved-level>" > paper/.aris/assurance.txt   # draft or submission

What each level does downstream:

• draft — Existing behavior. Audits run only when their content detector matches (Phase 4.5 / 4.7 / 5.5 / 5.8). Missing artifacts are non-blocking. Silent-skip allowed.
• submission — The four mandatory audits (proof-checker, paper-claim-audit, citation-audit, kill-argument) are treated as load-bearing gates. Each sub-audit must emit its JSON artifact (PASS / WARN / FAIL / NOT_APPLICABLE / BLOCKED / ERROR) — never silent-skip. Phase 6 runs verify_paper_audits.sh (canonical name; resolved per shared-references/integration-contract.md §2); a non-zero exit blocks the Final Report.

Escape hatch: a user wanting the old "beast = depth-only, no audit gate" can pass — effort: beast, assurance: draft explicitly. Legal but discouraged for actual submissions. See shared-references/assurance-contract.md for the full contract.

Announce the resolved level in-line before Phase 1:

📋 Assurance: <level> (derived from effort: <effort>)
   <either "current behavior, no audit gate" OR "mandatory audits gated by verify_paper_audits.sh (resolved per integration-contract §2)">

Phase 1: Paper Plan

Invoke /paper-plan to create the structural outline:

/paper-plan "$ARGUMENTS"

If — style-ref: <source> was passed in $ARGUMENTS and the helper succeeded above, append — style-ref: <source> to the invocation: /paper-plan "<topic> — style-ref: <source>". (Writer-side phase — forwarding is allowed; reviewer/auditor phases below must not see the style ref.)

What this does:

• Parse NARRATIVE_REPORT.md for claims, evidence, and figure descriptions
• Build a Claims-Evidence Matrix — every claim maps to evidence, every experiment supports a claim
• Design section structure (5-8 sections depending on paper type)
• Plan figure/table placement with data sources
• Scaffold citation structure
• GPT-6-Astra reviews the plan for completeness

Output: PAPER_PLAN.md with section plan, figure plan, citation scaffolding.

Checkpoint: Present the plan summary to the user.

📐 Paper plan complete:
- Title: [proposed title]
- Sections: [N] ([list])
- Figures: [N] auto-generated + [M] manual
- Target: [VENUE], [PAGE_LIMIT] pages

Shall I proceed with figure generation?

• User approves (or AUTO_PROCEED=true) → proceed to Phase 1.5.
• User requests changes → adjust plan and re-present.

Phase 1.5: Negotiated Acceptance Contract (before any writing)

The plan says what the paper will contain; the CONTRACT says what "done" means — a checklist of testable assertions, negotiated ADVERSARIALLY before the first section is written, and graded at the end. (The plan is the boundary; the contract is what gets graded.)

1. Executor proposes. From PAPER_PLAN.md + NARRATIVE_REPORT.md, draft PAPER_ACCEPTANCE_CONTRACT.md: 10–20 testable assertions covering — every headline claim has a named evidence source (file/table); every number in the abstract traces to a results file; scope qualifiers the title /abstract must carry; figures that must exist and what each must show; section-level completeness (e.g. "limitations names ≥2 real limitations, not hedges"); venue constraints (page limit, anonymization). Each assertion must be CHECKABLE by reading the final PDF + results files — no vibes ("writing is clear" is not an assertion; "every acronym is defined at first use" is). Fewer than ~10 assertions and the gate rubber-stamps; beyond ~20 the negotiation stalls on trivia.

2. Reviewer pushes back (fresh thread — the negotiation is adversarial):

   mcp__codex__codex:
     model: gpt-6-astra
     config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
     prompt: |
       You are negotiating the acceptance contract for a paper BEFORE it is
       written. Read these files directly:
       - Plan: <abs path>/PAPER_PLAN.md
       - Proposed contract: <abs path>/PAPER_ACCEPTANCE_CONTRACT.md
       - Evidence inventory: <abs path>/NARRATIVE_REPORT.md (+ results/ paths)
   
       Push back on the contract, not the plan: (a) assertions that are
       untestable or vibes — demand a checkable rewrite; (b) missing
       assertions — claims in the plan that no assertion covers, numbers with
       no traceability assertion, foreseeable overclaim risks with no scope
       assertion; (c) assertions the evidence inventory cannot possibly
       satisfy — flag now, not after writing. End with exactly one line:
       CONTRACT_ACCEPTED: yes    or    CONTRACT_ACCEPTED: no
       followed by your numbered revision demands if no.
   
       === SCOPE LIMITS (these bound what you PROPOSE, never what you look for) ===
       Report anything that is actually wrong here — including a rare-looking case, if
       this repo actually produces it. Then keep the fix in scope:
       1. This is a RESEARCH-WORKFLOW tool, not a security paper. Verification is
          welcome; over-defense is not. Assume a cooperating operator on their own
          machine — a malicious local user is NOT in the threat model.
       2. Do NOT propose SHA / hash / content-fingerprint / digest-binding schemes.
          Reporting a real defect in hashing code that already exists is fine.
       3. NO speculative machinery: do not add feature flags, migration frameworks,
          compat layers, wrappers, pins, or similar mechanisms unless evidence shows
          a current repo defect they fix or an explicit existing invariant they must
          preserve. "Load-bearing", "compatibility", and "not scaffolding" are labels,
          not evidence. Point to the failing path/artifact or invariant, and check the
          proposal's factual premises, such as whether a named package version exists.
       4. NO corner-case obsession: exotic encodings, symlink races, RTL text and
          millisecond races are out of scope unless you can show the case arises here.
       5. Where a rubric or checklist is genuinely needed, do not over-mechanize
          judgement. A clear sentence a human reads beats a scored table nobody
          maintains.
       Exception: code that runs remote commands, starts a network service, or installs
       an MCP server runs on the user's machine with their credentials — trust-boundary
       findings there are in scope and the default is strict.
       Say plainly when something is correct. Do not manufacture findings.
   

   A reply with a missing or malformed CONTRACT_ACCEPTED: line is treated as no; request a corrected verdict via codex-reply — that correction exchange does not consume a negotiation round.

3. Iterate. On no, revise the contract per the demands and resubmit via mcp__codex__codex-reply (same thread — the negotiation is one conversation). Max 3 rounds.

4. Fallback — never stall the pipeline. If round 3 still ends in no: record the unresolved demands verbatim in a "## Disputed" section of the contract and mark it status: contested. A contested contract is precisely the "insert a human when the CONTRACT is wrong" trigger, so it OVERRIDES AUTO_PROCEED for this one decision: pause and present the dispute for a human tie-break. If no human responds (unattended/overnight run), proceed — but a contested contract caps the outcome: Phase 6.0 gates on the UNDISPUTED assertions and the Final Report must set Submission-ready: no with the dispute reproduced verbatim; the tie-break happens when the human returns.

Output: PAPER_ACCEPTANCE_CONTRACT.md (status: accepted | contested, round count, reviewer thread id). The contract is FROZEN once accepted — Phases 2–5 implement against it; they do not edit it. If writing reveals an assertion is genuinely wrong (not merely inconvenient), that is a contract question: surface it at a checkpoint, don't silently rewrite.

Boundary: /paper-claim-audit (Phases 4.7, 5.5) stays zero-context — the contract is a WRITER-side gate and is never passed to the claim auditor (its independence is the point; two different nets).

Phase 2: Figure Generation

If — style-ref: <source> was passed in $ARGUMENTS and the helper succeeded above, append — style-ref: <source> to every writer-side sub-skill invocation in this pipeline (Phases 1, 2b, 3, 5). Do not append it to reviewer/auditor invocations (Phases 4.5, 4.7, 5.5, 5.8).

Invoke /paper-figure to generate data-driven plots and tables:

/paper-figure "PAPER_PLAN.md"

What this does:

• Read figure plan from PAPER_PLAN.md
• Generate matplotlib/seaborn plots from JSON/CSV data
• Generate LaTeX comparison tables
• Create figures/latex_includes.tex for easy insertion
• GPT-6-Astra reviews figure quality and captions

Output: figures/ directory with PDFs, generation scripts, and LaTeX snippets.

Scope: paper-figure covers data plots and comparison tables. Architecture diagrams, pipeline figures, and method illustrations are handled in Phase 2b below.

Phase 2b: Architecture & Illustration Generation

Skip this step entirely if illustration: false.

If the paper plan includes architecture diagrams, pipeline figures, audit cascades, or method illustrations, invoke the appropriate generator based on the illustration parameter:

When illustration: figurespec (default) — invoke /figure-spec:

/figure-spec "[architecture/workflow description from PAPER_PLAN.md]"

• Deterministic JSON → SVG vector rendering (editable, reproducible)
• Best for: system architecture, workflow pipelines, audit cascades, layered topology
• Output: figures/*.svg + figures/*.pdf (via rsvg-convert) + figures/specs/*.json
• No external API, runs fully local

If — style-ref: <source> was passed and the helper succeeded above, append — style-ref: <source> to the invocation below as well.

When illustration: gemini — invoke /paper-illustration:

/paper-illustration "[method description from PAPER_PLAN.md or NARRATIVE_REPORT.md]"

• Claude plans → Gemini optimizes → Nano Banana Pro renders → Claude reviews (score ≥ 9)
• Best for: qualitative method illustrations, natural-style diagrams, result grids
• Output: figures/ai_generated/*.png
• Requires GEMINI_API_KEY environment variable

When illustration: mermaid — invoke /mermaid-diagram:

/mermaid-diagram "[method description from PAPER_PLAN.md]"

• Generates Mermaid syntax diagrams (flowchart, sequence, class, state, etc.)
• Best for: lightweight flowcharts, state machines, simple sequence diagrams
• Output: figures/*.mmd + figures/*.png
• Free, no API key needed

When illustration: codex-image2 — invoke /paper-illustration-image2:

/paper-illustration-image2 "[method description from PAPER_PLAN.md or NARRATIVE_REPORT.md]"

• Claude plans → Codex native image generation renders → Claude reviews (same multi-stage workflow as gemini, different renderer)
• Best for: users who want a GPT-image-style renderer without needing GEMINI_API_KEY; uses your existing Codex / ChatGPT Plus/Pro quota
• Output: figures/ai_generated/figure_final.png + latex_include.tex + review_log.json (emitted via the /paper-illustration-image2 SKILL's finalize step, which delegates to the canonical paper_illustration_image2.py helper resolved per integration-contract §2)
• Prerequisites (beyond ARIS's standard Claude Code + Codex coexistence): the local Codex app-server must be signed in (codex debug app-server send-message-v2 "ping" succeeds), and the dedicated MCP bridge must be registered — see mcp-servers/codex-image2/README.md for the one-time claude mcp add command. Delegate the preflight to /paper-illustration-image2 (which resolves the helper via the canonical chain), or invoke the helper directly via the shim at tools/paper_illustration_image2.py preflight --workspace . to confirm before relying on this path.
• Experimental: this renderer shells through the Codex debug app-server, which Codex documents as an unstable surface. Prefer figurespec or gemini for production submission flows until codex-image2 stabilizes.

When illustration: false — skip entirely. All non-data figures must be created manually (draw.io, Figma, TikZ) and placed in figures/ before Phase 3.

Choosing the right mode:

• Formal architecture / workflow / topology figures → figurespec (default)
• Method concept illustrations with natural style, have GEMINI_API_KEY → gemini
• Method concept illustrations, prefer ChatGPT Plus/Pro quota over Gemini key → codex-image2
• Quick flowchart / state machine → mermaid
• Full manual control → false

These are complementary, not mutually exclusive: you can run multiple generators for different figures in the same paper by re-invoking with different illustration overrides.

Checkpoint: List generated vs manual figures.

📊 Figures complete:
- Data plots (auto, Phase 2): [list]
- Architecture/illustrations (auto, Phase 2b, mode=<illustration>): [list]
- Manual (need your input): [list]
- LaTeX snippets: figures/latex_includes.tex

[If manual figures needed]: Please add them to figures/ before I proceed.
[If all auto]: Shall I proceed with LaTeX writing?

Writing invariant (every drafting and revision step): calibrate each claim to its evidence and state it directly; generic caveats live in the Limitations section only; writing instructions are never manuscript content ("do not mention X" means omit X, not "we do not address X"); tone edits never change what the paper knows; the paper is a launch, not a progress report — organize around the strongest advantage, give every experiment an argumentative duty, keep unfavorable numbers in the tables and explain them as tradeoffs only where the evidence supports that, never narrating defeats. /paper-write carries the full CONFIDENT PROSE, HONEST LIMITS contract.

Phase 3: LaTeX Writing

Invoke /paper-write to generate section-by-section LaTeX:

/paper-write "PAPER_PLAN.md"

If — style-ref: <source> was passed in $ARGUMENTS and the helper succeeded above, append — style-ref: <source> to the invocation: /paper-write "PAPER_PLAN.md — style-ref: <source>".

What this does:

• Write each section following the plan, with proper LaTeX formatting
• Insert figure/table references from figures/latex_includes.tex
• Build references.bib from citation scaffolding
• Clean stale files from previous section structures
• Automated bib cleaning (remove uncited entries)
• De-AI polish (remove "delve", "pivotal", "landscape"...)
• GPT-6-Astra reviews each section for quality

Output: paper/ directory with main.tex, sections/*.tex, references.bib, math_commands.tex.

Checkpoint: Report section completion.

✍️ LaTeX writing complete:
- Sections: [N] written ([list])
- Citations: [N] unique keys in references.bib
- Stale files cleaned: [list, if any]

Shall I proceed with compilation?

Phase 4: Compilation

Invoke /paper-compile to build the PDF:

/paper-compile "paper/"

What this does:

• latexmk -pdf with automatic multi-pass compilation
• Auto-fix common errors (missing packages, undefined refs, BibTeX syntax)
• Up to 3 compilation attempts
• Post-compilation checks: undefined refs, page count, font embedding
• Precise page verification via pdftotext
• Stale file detection

Output: paper/main.pdf

Checkpoint: Report compilation results.

🔨 Compilation complete:
- Status: SUCCESS
- Pages: [X] (main body) + [Y] (references) + [Z] (appendix)
- Within page limit: YES/NO
- Undefined references: 0
- Undefined citations: 0

Shall I proceed with the improvement loop?

Phase 4.5: Proof Verification (theory papers only)

Skip this phase if the paper contains no theorems, lemmas, or proofs.

if paper contains \begin{theorem} or \begin{lemma} or \begin{proof}:
    Run /proof-checker "paper/"
    This invokes GPT-6-Astra xhigh to:
    - Verify all proof steps (hypothesis discharge, interchange justification, etc.)
    - Check for logic gaps, quantifier errors, missing domination conditions
    - Attempt counterexamples on key lemmas
    - Generate PROOF_AUDIT.md with issue list + severity

    If FATAL or CRITICAL issues found:
        Fix before proceeding to improvement loop
    If only MAJOR/MINOR:
        Proceed, improvement loop may address remaining issues
else:
    skip — no proofs, no action

Phase 4.7: Paper Claim Audit

Skip if no result files exist (e.g., survey/position papers with no experiments).

if results/*.json or results/*.csv or outputs/*.json exist:
    Run /paper-claim-audit "paper/"
    Fresh zero-context reviewer compares every number in the paper
    against raw result files. Catches rounding inflation, best-seed
    cherry-pick, config mismatch, delta errors.

    If FAIL:
        Fix mismatched numbers before improvement loop
    If WARN:
        Proceed, but flag for manual verification
else:
    skip — no experimental results to verify

Phase 5: Auto Improvement Loop

Invoke /auto-paper-improvement-loop to polish the paper:

/auto-paper-improvement-loop "paper/"

If — style-ref: <source> was passed in $ARGUMENTS and the helper succeeded above, append — style-ref: <source> to the invocation: /auto-paper-improvement-loop "paper/ — style-ref: <source>". The improvement loop's reviewer sub-agent will still NOT see the style ref (the loop's own SKILL forbids it); only the fix-implementation phase consumes it.

What this does (2 rounds):

Round 1: GPT-6-Astra xhigh reviews the full paper → identifies CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR issues → Claude Code implements fixes → recompile → save main_round1.pdf

Round 2: GPT-6-Astra xhigh re-reviews the recompiled draft cold (fresh review — no fix summaries, no conversation carry-over) → identifies remaining issues → Claude Code implements fixes → recompile → save main_round2.pdf

Typical improvements (calibration cuts both ways):

• Fix assumption-model mismatches
• Narrow genuine overclaims to the supported scope — and state supported claims directly, removing redundant hedges
• Consolidate scattered generic caveats into Limitations
• Add missing interpretations and notation
• Make Limitations more specific (only when a material limit is missing — never pad)
• Add theory-aligned experiments if needed

Output: Three PDFs for comparison + PAPER_IMPROVEMENT_LOG.md.

Format check (included in improvement loop Step 8): After final recompilation, auto-detect and fix overfull hboxes (content exceeding margins), verify page count vs venue limit, and ensure compact formatting. Location-aware thresholds: any main-body overfull blocks completion regardless of size; appendix overfulls block only if >10pt; bibliography overfulls block only if >20pt.

Phase 5.5: Final Paper Claim Audit (MANDATORY submission gate)

After /auto-paper-improvement-loop finishes, rerun /paper-claim-audit before the final report whenever the paper contains numeric claims and machine-readable raw result files exist.

Use the same detectors as Phase 4.7:

• numeric-claim regex over paper/main.tex and paper/sections/*.tex
• raw-evidence file search in results/, outputs/, experiments/, and figures/ for .json, .jsonl, .csv, .tsv, .yaml, or .yml

This phase is mandatory if both detectors are positive. It blocks the final report. If numeric claims exist but no raw result files are found, stop and warn the user before declaring the paper complete. If no numeric claims exist, skip.

NUMERIC_CLAIMS=$(rg -n -e '[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+)?\s*(%|\\%|±|\\pm|x|×)' \
  -e '(accuracy|BLEU|F1|AUC|mAP|top-1|top-5|error|loss|perplexity|speedup|improvement)' \
  paper/main.tex paper/sections 2>/dev/null || true)

RAW_RESULT_FILES=$(find results outputs experiments figures -type f \
  \( -name '*.json' -o -name '*.jsonl' -o -name '*.csv' -o -name '*.tsv' -o -name '*.yaml' -o -name '*.yml' \) 2>/dev/null | head -200)

if [ -n "$NUMERIC_CLAIMS" ] && [ -n "$RAW_RESULT_FILES" ]; then
    Run /paper-claim-audit "paper/"
    If FAIL:
        Fix mismatched numbers before the final report
elif [ -n "$NUMERIC_CLAIMS" ]; then
    Stop and warn: the paper contains numeric claims but no raw evidence files were found
fi

Empirical motivation: in a real submission run, the final paper claimed a narrower experiment grid than the raw JSON actually contained, and a tolerance value was rounded down past the actual relative error. Both were caught only after manual paper-claim-audit invocation in the final round; the improvement loop did not detect them.

Phase 5.6: Kill-Argument Adversarial Review (theory / scope-heavy papers)

After Phase 5.5 (claim audit) passes, run /kill-argument whenever the paper is theory-heavy or makes explicit scope/generality claims in the title or abstract. This is a final adversarial check that complements the claim/citation/proof audits: those verify local correctness (numbers match, cites resolve, theorems prove); kill-argument tests headline-level survival — whether the paper as a whole answers the worst rejection paragraph a senior area chair would write.

THEORY_ENV_COUNT=$(rg -c '\\begin\{(theorem|lemma|proposition|corollary)\}' paper/main.tex paper/sections 2>/dev/null | awk -F: '{s+=$2} END {print s+0}')
SCOPE_HINT=$(rg -i 'general(ization)?|broad|universal|across|any [A-Za-z]+ model|holds for' paper/sections/0*abstract* 2>/dev/null | head -1)

if [ "$THEORY_ENV_COUNT" -ge 5 ] || [ -n "$SCOPE_HINT" ]; then
    /kill-argument "paper/"
    KILL_VERDICT=$(jq -r '.verdict' paper/KILL_ARGUMENT.json)
    KILL_REASON=$(jq -r '.reason_code' paper/KILL_ARGUMENT.json)
fi

Gating (depends on the resolved assurance level from Phase 0):

/kill-argument itself never edits the paper; it writes KILL_ARGUMENT.{md,json}. If still_unresolved critical points are surfaced, queue them for the next /auto-paper-improvement-loop round (Step 5.5 of that skill auto-merges the findings into its fix list).

Why this is the right place: Phase 5 (loop) optimizes for score, Phase 5.5 (claim audit) verifies numbers, Phase 5.8 (citation audit) verifies cites — none of these catches the case where every local component is correct but the paper still oversells what it actually proves. Kill-argument is the dedicated headline-scope check.

Phase 5.8: Citation Audit (submission gate)

After the final paper-claim-audit passes, run /citation-audit to verify every \cite{...} along three axes: existence, metadata correctness, and context appropriateness. This is the fourth and final layer of the evidence-and-claim assurance stack (experiment-audit → result-to-claim → paper-claim-audit → citation-audit).

if paper/references.bib (or paper.bib) exists and contains entries cited from sec/*.tex:
    Run /citation-audit "paper/"
    Fresh cross-family reviewer (gpt-6-astra via Codex MCP) with web/DBLP/arXiv lookup
    verifies each entry:
      (i)   EXISTENCE — paper resolves at claimed arXiv ID / DOI / venue
      (ii)  METADATA — author names, year, venue, title match canonical sources
      (iii) CONTEXT — cited paper actually establishes the claim it supports

    Output:
      - CITATION_AUDIT.md (human-readable per-entry verdict report)
      - CITATION_AUDIT.json (machine-readable verdict ledger)
      - Per-entry verdicts: KEEP / FIX / REPLACE / REMOVE

    If any REPLACE or REMOVE verdicts:
        Surface to user for human approval — never auto-modify content claims
    If only FIX verdicts (metadata corrections):
        Apply with user confirmation, then recompile
    If all KEEP:
        Pass — bibliography clean for submission
else:
    skip — no bib file or no citations

Why this is the most diagnostic of the four audit layers: wildly fake citations are easy to spot. The dangerous failure mode is a real paper used to support a claim it does not actually establish (wrong-context citations) — these slip past metadata-only checks and damage submission credibility. Run cost is wall-clock heavy (web lookup per entry); run once per submission, not per save.

Empirical motivation: in a real submission run, several real papers were cited in contexts they did not actually support, and at least one bib entry shipped with author = "Anonymous" because the metadata had not been resolved. None were caught by the improvement loop or numeric claim audit; only fresh web-lookup review surfaced them.

Phase 5.9: Integrity Forensics (submission self-audit — default ON)

Run the /integrity-forensics launcher on paper/ (ABSOLUTE path): the SHA-pinned Anti-Autoresearch sweep — evidence ledger, nine auditor dimensions, deterministic adjudication — followed by the typed policy gate and the append-only obligations ledger. Self-auditing runs at whatever observability the artifacts allow (with code/ + results/ present that is L2 — stricter than anything an external reviewer can run).

When it runs (re-derive here — do NOT trust .aris/assurance.txt alone; a resumed run whose Phase 0 never executed, or whose file went stale, must not silently skip the default-ON gate):

1. Re-derive the assurance level from $ARGUMENTS with the same rule as Phase 0 / Phase 6.0 (explicit — assurance: wins; else max/beast → submission; else draft).
2. Parse $ARGUMENTS for — self_forensics: true | false.
3. Then:
   • submission → ON by default. Opt out only with an explicit — self_forensics: false — persist the receipt as a record: mkdir -p paper/.aris/forensics && echo "opted-out: — self_forensics: false in \$ARGUMENTS" > paper/.aris/forensics/opt_out.txt (recorded in the Final Report as Forensics: skipped (opted out)). The receipt documents THIS run's decision; it does not authorize any later run to skip — Phase 6.0 re-parses $ARGUMENTS itself.
   • draft → off unless — self_forensics: true.

Gate handling (exit 1 = BLOCK: upstream HARD_FLAGS, REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE, or an OPEN critical obligation):

• Refuse the Final Report — same discipline as a verifier FAIL. Surface the upstream REPORT.md and the obligations verbatim; never paraphrase-soften.
• Route each obligation to its repair door (the family table in /integrity-forensics Step 3): numeric → recompute from result files; citations → /citation-audit; proof → /proof-checker; scope/baseline/ eval-design → /auto-review-loop as reviewer input, or the human.
• Close obligations ONLY via forensics_gate.py resolve (typed, hashed evidence) or a human waive. Since 2026-08 upstream reports every proposal an auditor made rather than deciding which ones do not count, so expect more obligations and expect some to be proposals you judge wrong — waive with a reason is the normal disposition for those, not a last resort. Never edit the paper with the objective "make the sweep stop flagging" — a vanished-but-unresolved finding keeps the gate closed (UNRESOLVED_DISAPPEARANCE).
• WARN (SOFT_FLAGS / open non-critical obligations): proceed, but the Final Report must list them under Forensics — including the dimensions the sweep never ran, which evaluate and fresh both print. A WARN can sit on top of an incomplete sweep: upstream folds incompleteness into the verdict only when it would otherwise read clean.
• Zero-weight AIS style impressions: FYI only — may feed /auto-paper-improvement-loop context, never gate.

Phase 6: Final Report

Phase 6.0 — Submission Gate

Before writing the Final Report, resolve the active assurance level. This uses the same derivation rule as Phase 0 so a run where Phase 0 was skipped or its write failed cannot silently downgrade a beast / max / — assurance: submission invocation back to draft.

Resolution at the gate (re-derive; do not trust .aris/assurance.txt alone):

1. Parse $ARGUMENTS for an explicit — assurance: draft | submission or an — effort: lite | balanced | max | beast directive.
2. Derive the expected level:
   • explicit assurance: wins
   • else lite / balanced → draft, max / beast → submission
   • else draft
3. Read paper/.aris/assurance.txt. If the file is missing, write it now with the derived level.
4. If the file's value disagrees with the derived level (e.g. file says draft but $ARGUMENTS says beast), overwrite the file with the derived level and surface a one-line warning in-chat: ⚠️ .aris/assurance.txt was draft but $ARGUMENTS says submission; overriding.
5. Use the re-derived level as authoritative for the rest of Phase 6.

# Final authoritative value, written and read from the same source
ASSURANCE=<derived-from-$ARGUMENTS>        # draft | submission
mkdir -p paper/.aris
echo "$ASSURANCE" > paper/.aris/assurance.txt

If ASSURANCE=draft, skip directly to the Final Report template below — current behavior, no change for the default balanced user.

If ASSURANCE=submission, run the pre-flight checklist below, then the verifier. The verifier's exit code is the source of truth — do NOT self-declare "audits complete" based on conversation memory.

Submission pre-flight checklist

Print this checklist verbatim at the start of Phase 6.0 and confirm each row before proceeding. This resists the common failure mode of the model skipping audits while claiming to have run them.

📋 Submission audits required before Final Report:
   [ ] 0. PAPER_ACCEPTANCE_CONTRACT.md (Phase 1.5): re-read every assertion
          against the final PDF + results files; each → satisfied / violated /
          disputed-at-negotiation. ANY violated undisputed assertion blocks the
          Final Report until fixed or the human explicitly waives it (waivers
          recorded in the contract file). Contract absent (pre-1.5 run) → mark
          "no contract" and continue.
   [ ] 1. /proof-checker        → paper/PROOF_AUDIT.json
   [ ] 2. /paper-claim-audit    → paper/PAPER_CLAIM_AUDIT.json
   [ ] 3. /citation-audit       → paper/CITATION_AUDIT.json
   [ ] 4. Resolve $AUDIT_VERIFIER per integration-contract.md §2 (Policy A),
          then: bash "$AUDIT_VERIFIER" paper/ --assurance submission
   [ ] 5. Integrity forensics (Phase 5.9, default ON at submission). FIRST
          re-parse the CURRENT $ARGUMENTS — an opt_out.txt receipt left by a
          PREVIOUS run never carries over; it is a record for the report line,
          not an authorization.
          - current $ARGUMENTS has `— self_forensics: false` → skipping is
            legal; write/refresh paper/.aris/forensics/opt_out.txt.
          - otherwise the whole check is ONE command:
            `python3 "$GATE_HELPER" fresh --paper-dir paper/ --anti-ar-commit
            "$ANTI_AR_COMMIT"` (the pin constant from /integrity-forensics;
            an old-pin gate must be re-audited) — exit 0 ⟺ a
            gate exists ∧ no paper file changed after it ∧ it matches the
            current obligations ledger ∧ its decision is pass-capable (an
            ALLOWLIST: WARN / NO_NEW_BLOCKER — an unknown or missing token
            never passes). Exit 1 → the sweep never saw this text (or the
            gate is BLOCK): run Phase 5.9 NOW, before the Final Report —
            BLOCK is blocked, same as a verifier FAIL.
   [ ] 6. Block Final Report iff verifier exit code != 0 OR row 0 found a
          violated undisputed assertion OR row 5 is red. (THREE separate
          gates: row 0 is graded by instruction against the contract; the
          verifier checks audit JSONs only — verify_paper_audits.sh does NOT
          read the contract; row 5 reads the forensics gate artifact.)

The resolver in "Running the verifier" below tries .aris/tools/verify_paper_audits.sh (created by install_aris.sh), then tools/verify_paper_audits.sh (in-repo run), then $ARIS_REPO/tools/verify_paper_audits.sh (env-var-set or manifest-derived path), then the same $ARIS_REPO/tools/verify_paper_audits.sh resolved via the global pointer file ~/.aris/repo (#366). The chain always tries layers 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 in o

…(truncated)