Autoconference:ship

autoconference:ship — Conference Results Shipping

Convert conference findings into publication-ready output through an 8-phase pipeline with a single human review gate.

Shipping Persistence Directive

This pipeline runs to completion autonomously. The only pause point is Phase 7 (CONFIRM), where the user reviews the draft and approves or requests changes. All other phases execute automatically in sequence without asking the user for permission to continue.

Do NOT ask "should I proceed to Phase N?" between phases. Execute each phase and immediately begin the next.

Phase 1: Verify

Locate and validate the conference output directory.

1a. Locate the conference directory.

Try in order:

1. Check if the user specified a path in their request.
2. Auto-detect: search the current working directory and subdirectories for a conference.md file using Glob.
3. If multiple candidates are found, list them and ask the user to choose.
4. If no candidate is found, ask the user: "Where is your conference directory?"

1b. Check required files.

The following files are required for shipping. For each, check existence using Glob or Bash:

1c. Check conference completion.

If conference_events.jsonl exists, scan it for a conference.completed event:

grep '"event":"conference.completed"' conference_events.jsonl

If the event is present: proceed normally. If absent but final_report.md exists: issue a warning — "Warning: No completion event found. Conference may not have finished. Proceeding with available files." If final_report.md is missing: halt and tell the user: "Cannot ship — final_report.md is missing. Run the conference to completion first, or run autoconference:resume to finish an interrupted conference."

1d. If analysis-report.md exists, read it now and note its key insights. These will be incorporated into the output in Phase 5.

1e. Print verification summary:

=== PHASE 1: VERIFY ===
Conference directory: {path}
Required files: {found_count}/{required_count} present
Optional files: {optional_found}
Completion event: FOUND / NOT FOUND (warning issued)
Analysis report: PRESENT / ABSENT
Proceeding to Phase 2.

Phase 2: Format Selection

Ask the user exactly once for their desired output format. Do not proceed until you have this answer.

Present the following options:

A. Research report (default) Full formal report with methodology, results, and discussion sections. Structured like a technical paper but without the full formality of a journal submission. Appropriate for sharing with research teams, posting as a preprint, or as a basis for a formal paper.

B. Blog post Accessible narrative format for a wider audience. Minimal jargon, strong narrative arc, lead with the most surprising or useful finding. Length: 800–1500 words. Appropriate for sharing on technical blogs, newsletters, or social media.

C. Paper sections Methods + Results sections formatted to paste directly into a paper manuscript. Follows standard academic structure. Appropriate when the user already has a paper draft and needs these sections filled in.

D. Executive summary 1–2 page summary for stakeholders or collaborators who need the bottom line without details. Lead with recommendation, follow with supporting evidence. Appropriate for project sponsors, managers, or non-technical audiences.

If the user does not specify a preference, default to A (Research report) and note this in the output.

Record the chosen format and proceed immediately to Phase 3.

Phase 3: Evidence Collection

Read all relevant files from the conference directory and extract the evidence base for the chosen format.

3a. Quantitative results — read conference_results.tsv in full. Extract:

• All numeric metrics tracked across rounds
• Best result achieved (peak value, at which round, by which researcher)
• Final result at conference end
• Improvement trajectory (how much did the metric improve from Round 1 to final?)
• Whether the target metric was met (check conference.md for the target)

3b. Key findings — read synthesis.md in full. Extract:

• The top 3–5 insights identified by the synthesis
• Any convergence observations (did researchers agree or diverge?)
• The winning approach(es) and why they succeeded

3c. Reviewer verdicts — if final_report.md contains reviewer scores or verdicts, extract:

• Each researcher's final score or ranking
• The specific reasons given for high/low scores
• Any minority opinions or dissenting views

3d. Conference configuration — read conference.md to extract:

• The research question / metric being optimized
• Number of researchers, rounds run, max rounds
• Whether convergence was achieved or budget exhausted

3e. Convergence data — from conference_results.tsv and final_report.md:

• How many rounds were run?
• Was the target met? At which round?
• What was the convergence pattern? (rapid early, gradual, plateau?)

3f. Visualizations — note which visual files exist (conference_progress.png, any per-example plots). These will be referenced in the output.

3g. Analysis insights — if analysis-report.md was found in Phase 1, re-read its key findings section now and incorporate them into the evidence base.

3h. Print collection summary:

=== PHASE 3: EVIDENCE COLLECTION ===
Metric tracked: {metric_name}
Best result: {value} (Round {N}, Researcher {ID})
Final result: {value}
Improvement: {delta} ({pct}%)
Target met: YES / NO
Key findings extracted: {count}
Visualizations available: {list}

Phase 4: Citation Verification

If the conference involved web searches, paper references, or external claims, verify them now.

4a. URL verification — scan all required files for URLs using:

grep -oE 'https?://[^)> "]+' synthesis.md final_report.md

For each URL found:

• Use WebFetch to attempt access
• If accessible: mark as verified
• If inaccessible (404, timeout): mark as [LINK BROKEN] — do not remove, just flag

4b. Citation formatting — for any academic papers referenced by title or partial citation:

• Check that author, year, and title are present
• If a DOI or arXiv ID is present, verify it resolves
• If a paper is referenced only by title with no other metadata: mark as [citation incomplete]

4c. Unsupported claims — scan synthesis.md and final_report.md for qualitative claims that are not backed by data in conference_results.tsv. Examples:

• "Researcher A's approach was significantly better" — is this supported by a numeric comparison?
• "The method generalizes well" — is there evidence for this in the results?

For each unsupported claim found, add a [citation needed] marker inline in your working draft. Do not delete the claim — just flag it.

4d. Print verification summary:

=== PHASE 4: CITATION VERIFICATION ===
URLs checked: {count} ({verified} verified, {broken} broken)
Incomplete citations: {count}
Unsupported claims flagged: {count}

If no URLs or citations were found, print: "No external references to verify. Skipping URL checks."

Phase 5: Abstract Draft

Write the abstract or executive summary that opens the output document.

The abstract must cover these four elements regardless of format:

1. Problem statement — What question or metric was the conference trying to address? Why does it matter?

2. Method description — Describe the multi-agent conference approach in 2–3 sentences. Name the number of researchers, the round structure, and the key mechanisms (poster sessions, peer review, cross-pollination).

3. Key results — Present the most important quantitative findings with actual numbers from the evidence collected in Phase 3. Do not use vague language like "improved significantly." Use: "improved from X to Y (Z% gain over N rounds)."

4. Conclusion — What is the takeaway? What should the reader do with this result?

Adjust tone and length based on the chosen format:

• Research report: formal, ~200 words, past tense
• Blog post: conversational, ~100 words, present tense, start with a hook
• Paper sections: formal, ~150 words, follows standard abstract structure
• Executive summary: direct, ~80 words, lead with the recommendation

Write the abstract to a scratch variable — it will be incorporated into the full draft in Phase 6.

Phase 6: Peer Review Request

Spawn a Reviewer agent to evaluate the assembled draft before presenting it to the user.

Give the Reviewer:

• The full evidence base (all extracted results from Phase 3)
• The abstract draft from Phase 5
• The chosen output format
• The citation flags from Phase 4

The Reviewer checks:

1. Logical consistency — Do the claims in the abstract match the data in conference_results.tsv? Are there contradictions between what the synthesis says and what the results show?

2. Claim support — Are all quantitative claims backed by numbers? Are there any places where the draft says "best" or "superior" without a comparison value?

3. Format compliance — Does the draft match the requirements of the chosen format? (e.g., is a research report properly structured? Is a blog post accessible enough?)

4. Completeness — Are any important findings from synthesis.md missing from the draft? Are the reviewer verdicts properly represented?

5. Citation flag handling — Are broken links and unsupported claims flagged clearly?

The Reviewer produces a peer-review-ship.md with:

• A list of specific issues found (with locations: "In abstract, paragraph 2...")
• A list of suggested improvements
• An overall readiness assessment: READY / NEEDS REVISION

Phase 7: CONFIRM

This is the ONLY pause point in the pipeline.

Present to the user:

1. The complete draft output (all sections formatted for the chosen format)
2. The reviewer's feedback from Phase 6 (summarized, with the full peer-review-ship.md path noted)
3. The citation flags summary from Phase 4

Ask the user:

"Draft complete. Reviewer assessment: [READY / NEEDS REVISION].

Reviewer flagged {N} issues: [brief list of top issues]

Ready to finalize and write the output files? Or would you like changes?

• Type yes / ship it / looks good to finalize
• Describe any changes you want and I'll revise"

If the user approves: proceed immediately to Phase 8.

If the user requests changes:

1. Apply all requested changes to the draft
2. Re-run Phase 6 (spawn Reviewer again on the revised draft)
3. Return to Phase 7 with the updated draft and new reviewer feedback
4. Repeat until the user approves

Do not finalize without explicit user approval.

Phase 8: Publish

Write the final output files.

8a. Write ship-log.md

This is the master log of the shipping run. Write it to the conference directory with:

# Ship Log

**Conference:** {path to conference.md}
**Shipped:** {date}
**Format:** {chosen format name}
**Reviewer assessment:** READY / NEEDS REVISION (resolved after N revision cycles)

## Citation Issues
{list of broken links and unsupported claim flags, or "None"}

## Peer Review Summary
{brief summary of reviewer feedback and how issues were addressed}

## Output Files
- {format-specific output file path}

8b. Write the format-specific output file

Write the complete, finalized content to this file. The content must be self-contained — a reader with no other context should be able to read it and understand the conference findings.

Research report structure (if chosen):

# {Conference topic / research question}

## Abstract
{abstract from Phase 5, finalized}

## 1. Introduction
- Background and motivation
- Research question
- Why multi-agent conference approach was used

## 2. Methods
- Conference configuration (N researchers, N rounds, target metric)
- Partitioning strategy (how researchers were differentiated)
- Poster session and knowledge transfer mechanism
- Peer review process

## 3. Results
- Convergence curve (reference conference_progress.png if available)
- Metric progression by round (table or narrative)
- Best result achieved and by whom
- Key breakthroughs — what insights drove the biggest improvements?

## 4. Discussion
- What worked and why
- What failed or stalled and why
- Comparison to baseline (if any baseline was established)
- Limitations of the approach

## 5. Conclusion
- Answer to the research question
- Practical recommendation
- Suggested next steps

## References
{all verified citations}

8c. Print completion message:

=== PHASE 8: PUBLISHED ===
ship-log.md written to: {path}
Output file written to: {path}
Format: {format name}

Shipped.

Output Files Summary

After a complete run, the following files are written to the conference directory:

Chaining

This skill is the final stage in the autoconference pipeline:

• autoconference → ship: Ship raw conference results directly as a report, blog post, or paper sections.
• autoconference → autoconference:analyze → ship: Run analysis first for deeper statistical breakdowns, then ship. The analysis-report.md output is automatically incorporated in Phase 1 and Phase 3.
• autoconference:survey → autoconference → ship: Full pipeline from literature survey through experimental conference to publication.

When chaining from autoconference:analyze, the ship skill automatically detects and incorporates analysis-report.md without requiring the user to specify it.