Agent skill

citation-diversifier

Raise citation diversity/density (NO NEW FACTS): generate an in-scope “citation budget” plan per H3 so drafts stop failing the global unique-citation gate and stop looking under-cited. **Trigger**: cite boost, citation budget, unique citations too low, add more citations, improve reference density, 引用太少, 增加引用, 引用密度. **Use when**: `pipeline-auditor` FAILs due to low unique citations, or you want to increase cite density without changing claims. **Skip if**: you need new papers (fix C1/C2 mapping first), or `citations/ref.bib` / `outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl` is missing. **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: NO NEW FACTS; do not invent citations; only use keys already present in `citations/ref.bib`; keep citations within each H3’s allowed scope (`outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl` / `outline/evidence_bindings.jsonl`).

Stars 377
Forks 25

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/tree/main/.codex/skills/citation-diversifier

SKILL.md

Citation Diversifier (budget-as-constraints) [NO NEW FACTS]

Purpose: fix a common survey failure mode:

  • the draft reads under-cited (or reuses the same few citations everywhere)
  • the pipeline fails the global unique-citation gate

This skill does not change prose by itself. It produces a constraint sheet: output/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md.

Inputs

  • output/DRAFT.md
  • outline/outline.yml (H3 ids/titles; used to allocate budgets per subsection)
  • outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl (source of allowed_bibkeys_{selected,mapped,chapter,global} per H3)
  • citations/ref.bib

Output

  • output/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md

Non-negotiables (NO NEW FACTS)

  • Only propose citation keys that exist in citations/ref.bib.
  • Only propose keys that are in-scope for the target H3 (prefer subsection-first scope; use chapter/global only when truly cross-cutting).
  • Do not propose “padding citations” that would require adding new claims or new numbers.

What a good budget report looks like (contract)

The report should feel like a constraint sheet, not a random list:

  • It states the blocking policy target and the gap-to-target (how many unique keys are missing; policy default is recommended).
  • For each H3, it proposes a scope-safe budget sized to actually close the gap:
    • small gaps: 3-6 keys / H3 is often enough
    • A150++ gaps: plan for ~6-12 keys / H3 (and avoid duplicates across H3 budgets)
  • It gives placement guidance (where in the subsection those keys can be embedded without adding new facts).

Canonical (parseable) lines required (downstream validators depend on these):

  • The target is derived from queries.md:citation_target (recommended by default for A150++).
  • - Global target (policy; blocking): >= <N> ...
  • - Gap: <K> (gap-to-target; if 0, injection can be a no-op PASS)

Optional (always reported; may be blocking depending on citation_target):

  • - Global recommended target: >= <N> ...
  • - Gap to recommended: <K>

Recommended prioritization (scope-safe):

  • allowed_bibkeys_selectedallowed_bibkeys_mappedallowed_bibkeys_chapter
  • Use allowed_bibkeys_global only for:
    • benchmarks/protocol papers
    • widely-used datasets/suites
    • cross-cutting surveys/method papers referenced across chapters

How this connects to writing (LLM-first)

After you generate the budget report:

  • Apply it using citation-injector (LLM edits to output/DRAFT.md, NO NEW FACTS).
  • Then run draft-polisher to remove any “budget dump voice” while keeping citation keys unchanged.

Important: citation-injector is LLM-first. Its script is validation-only.

Workflow

  1. Diagnose the global situation
  • Read output/DRAFT.md and estimate the “unique-key gap” (or use pipeline-auditor’s FAIL reason).
  1. Allocate budgets per H3 (scope-first)
  • Use outline/outline.yml to enumerate H3s in paper order.
  • For each H3, read its allowed key sets from outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl.
  • Pick a small set of unused keys that strengthen positioning without requiring new claims.
  1. Write output/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md Required structure:
  • - Status: PASS|FAIL
  • - Global target (policy; blocking): >= <N> ...
  • - Gap: <K>
  • ## Summary (gap + strategy)
  • ## Per-subsection budgets (H3 id/title → suggested keys → placement hint)

Script (optional; deterministic report generator)

If you want a deterministic first-pass budget report, run the helper script. Treat it as a baseline and refine the plan as needed.

Quick Start

  • python .codex/skills/citation-diversifier/scripts/run.py --help
  • python .codex/skills/citation-diversifier/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

All Options

  • --workspace <dir>
  • --unit-id <U###> (optional)
  • --inputs <semicolon-separated> (rare override; prefer defaults)
  • --outputs <semicolon-separated> (rare override; default writes output/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md)
  • --checkpoint <C#> (optional)

Examples

  • Default IO:
    • python .codex/skills/citation-diversifier/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

Done criteria

  • output/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md exists and has actionable, in-scope budgets.
  • After applying the plan via citation-injector, pipeline-auditor no longer FAILs on global unique citations.

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

thesis-compile-review

对中文毕业论文进行编译、warning 分级、模板模式检查、数据与引用复查,并把问题回写成可继续迭代的 review checklist。 **Trigger**: 毕业论文编译检查, thesis compile review, warning 分级, 终稿复查, main.pdf 检查. **Use when**: 论文已经回写到 TeX 交付层,需要确认是否真正达到“可提交”的质量,而不是只做到能编译。 **Skip if**: 还处于中间层重构阶段,`chapters/*.tex` 尚未形成稳定交付稿。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 不在这里重构章节主线;如果发现结构问题,明确回退到上游修复。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

front-matter-writer

Write the survey's front matter files (Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Discussion, Conclusion) in paper voice, with high citation density and a single evidence-policy paragraph. **Trigger**: front matter writer, introduction writer, related work writer, abstract writer, discussion writer, conclusion writer, 引言, 相关工作, 摘要, 讨论, 结论. **Use when**: you are in C5 (prose allowed) and need the paper-like shell to stop the draft reading like stitched subsections. **Skip if**: `Approve C2` is missing in `DECISIONS.md`, or `citations/ref.bib` is missing. **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: no invented facts/citations; no pipeline jargon in final prose; no repeated evidence disclaimers; only use keys present in `citations/ref.bib`.

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

thesis-question-list

维护中文毕业论文的 `codex_md/question_list.md`:把本轮问题、边界、优先级、协作方案和验收口径结构化,作为整条 thesis pipeline 的控制面。 **Trigger**: 毕业论文问题清单, thesis question list, 论文修改清单, 本轮目标, 结构问题梳理, review问题整理. **Use when**: 你已经有一批材料或上一轮 review 结果,需要明确这一轮到底修什么、不修什么,并给后续重构与编译复查提供统一入口。 **Skip if**: 当前只是在做一次性局部措辞修改,且没有形成新一轮结构/证据/编译问题。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 不在这里写正文;不把问题单写成长篇散文;每条问题必须可执行、可验收。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

novelty-matrix

Create a novelty/prior-work matrix comparing the submission’s contributions against related work (overlaps vs deltas). **Trigger**: novelty matrix, prior-work matrix, overlap/delta, 相关工作对比, 新颖性矩阵. **Use when**: peer review 中评估 novelty/positioning,需要把贡献与相关工作逐项对齐并写出差异点证据。 **Skip if**: 缺少 claims(先跑 `claims-extractor`)或你不打算做新颖性定位分析。 **Network**: none (retrieval of additional related work is out-of-scope unless provided). **Guardrail**: 明确 overlap 与 delta;尽量给出可追溯证据来源(来自稿件/引用/作者陈述)。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

protocol-writer

Write a systematic review protocol into `output/PROTOCOL.md` (databases, queries, inclusion/exclusion, time window, extraction fields). **Trigger**: protocol, PRISMA, systematic review, inclusion/exclusion, 检索式, 纳入排除. **Use when**: systematic review pipeline 的起点(C1),需要先锁定 protocol 再开始 screening/extraction。 **Skip if**: 不是做 systematic review(或 protocol 已经锁定且不允许修改)。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: protocol 必须包含可执行的检索与筛选规则;需要 HUMAN 签字后才能进入 screening。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

rubric-writer

Write a rubric-based peer review report (`output/REVIEW.md`) using extracted claims and evidence gaps (novelty/soundness/clarity/impact). **Trigger**: rubric review, referee report, peer review write-up, 审稿报告, REVIEW.md. **Use when**: peer-review pipeline 的最后阶段(C3),已有 `output/CLAIMS.md` + `output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md`(以及可选 novelty matrix)。 **Skip if**: 上游产物未就绪(claims/evidence gaps 缺失)或你不打算输出完整审稿报告。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 给可执行建议(actionable feedback),并覆盖 novelty/soundness/clarity/impact;避免泛泛而谈。

377 25
Explore

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results