tools-only Audit Guide
How to use the paper-audit skill and interpret its results.
Quick Start
# Basic self-check
python scripts/audit.py paper.tex
# Peer review simulation
python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode review
# Quality gate (pass/fail)
python scripts/audit.py paper.pdf --mode gate --pdf-mode enhanced
# Chinese thesis
python scripts/audit.py thesis.tex --lang zh --venue thesis-zh
Mode Selection Guide
| Scenario | Recommended Mode | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "Is my paper ready to submit?" | self-check |
Full analysis with scores |
| "What would reviewers say?" | review |
Simulates conference-style review |
| "Can my student submit this?" | gate |
Fast pass/fail check |
| "Quick sanity check before deadline" | gate |
Fastest, checks essentials only |
| "I want detailed feedback" | review |
Most comprehensive output |
Understanding the Report
Self-Check Report
The self-check report contains:
- Executive Summary: Overall score and issue count at a glance
- Scores Table: Per-dimension scores with issue counts (Critical/Major/Minor)
- Issues List: All findings sorted by severity
- Pre-Submission Checklist: Pass/fail for each checklist item
How to read scores:
- 5.0+: Excellent — minor polish only
- 4.0-5.0: Good — address Major issues
- 3.0-4.0: Needs work — significant revisions required
- < 3.0: Major concerns — consider restructuring
Review Report
The review report adds:
- Strengths: What the paper does well
- Weaknesses: What reviewers would criticize
- Questions: What reviewers would ask
- Recommendation: Accept/reject with confidence level
Gate Report
Binary verdict:
- PASS: All mandatory checks passed, no critical issues
- FAIL: Blocking issues found — must fix before submission
PDF Input Considerations
PDF mode has inherent limitations:
| Feature | LaTeX/Typst | PDF Basic | PDF Enhanced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section detection | Exact | Heuristic | Good |
| Math verification | Full | Unavailable | Unavailable |
| Format checking | Full | Skipped | Skipped |
| Figure references | Full | Skipped | Skipped |
| Grammar analysis | Full | Good | Good |
| Logic analysis | Full | Good | Good |
| Bibliography | Full | Skipped | Skipped |
Recommendation: Use source files (.tex/.typ) whenever possible for maximum accuracy. Use PDF mode for quick reviews when source is unavailable.
Addressing Issues
Priority Order
- Critical (P0): Must fix — these will likely cause rejection
- Major (P1): Should fix — these weaken the paper significantly
- Minor (P2): Nice to fix — these improve polish
Common Critical Issues
- Missing figure/table references
- Compilation errors
- Placeholder text (TODO/FIXME)
- Author names in blind submission
Common Major Issues
- Long, convoluted sentences
- Logic gaps in methodology
- Missing baselines or ablations
- AI-trace patterns in writing
Common Minor Issues
- Minor grammar issues
- Inconsistent notation
- Style guide violations
Re-auditing After Fixes
After addressing issues, re-run the audit to verify improvements:
# Before fixes
python scripts/audit.py paper.tex -o report_before.md
# After fixes
python scripts/audit.py paper.tex -o report_after.md
Compare scores to track improvement.