Agent skill

citation-injector

Apply a `citation-diversifier` budget report by injecting *in-scope* citations into an existing draft (NO NEW FACTS), so the run passes the global unique-citation gate without citation dumps. **Trigger**: citation injector, apply citation budget, inject citations, add citations safely, 引用注入, 按预算加引用, 引用增密. **Use when**: `output/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md` exists and you need to raise *global* unique citations (or reduce over-reuse) before `draft-polisher` / `pipeline-auditor`. **Skip if**: you need more papers/citations upstream (fix C1/C2 mapping first), or `citations/ref.bib` is missing. **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: NO NEW FACTS; do not invent citations; only inject keys present in `citations/ref.bib`; keep injected citations within each H3’s allowed scope (via the budget report); avoid citation-dump paragraphs (embed cites per work).

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-injector

SKILL.md

Citation Injector (deterministic baseline edits; budget-as-constraints)

Purpose: make the pipeline converge when the draft is:

  • locally citation-dense but globally under-cited (too few unique keys), or
  • overly reusing the same citations across many subsections.

This skill is intentionally conservative and scriptable:

  • the script edits output/DRAFT.md directly using the budget report as constraints
  • injections stay evidence-neutral (NO NEW FACTS) and use only in-scope keys already listed for each H3

Inputs

  • output/DRAFT.md
  • output/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md (from citation-diversifier)
  • outline/outline.yml (H3 id/title mapping)
  • citations/ref.bib (must contain every injected key)

Outputs

  • output/DRAFT.md (updated in place)
  • output/CITATION_INJECTION_REPORT.md (PASS/FAIL + what you changed)

Non-negotiables (NO NEW FACTS)

  • Only inject keys listed for that H3 in the budget report.
  • Do not introduce new numbers, new benchmarks, or superiority claims.
  • Do not add narration templates (This subsection ..., Next, we ...).
  • Do not produce cite dumps like [@a; @b; @c] as the only citations in a paragraph.

Paper-voice injection patterns (safe sentence shapes)

Use these as sentence intentions (paraphrase; do not copy verbatim).

  1. Axis-anchored exemplars (preferred)
  • Systems such as X [@a] and Y [@b] instantiate <axis/design point>, whereas Z [@c] explores a contrasting point under a different protocol.
  1. Parenthetical grounding (short, low-risk)
  • ... (e.g., X [@a], Y [@b], Z [@c]).
  1. Cluster pointer + contrast hint
  • Representative implementations span both <cluster A> (X [@a], Y [@b]) and <cluster B> (Z [@c]), suggesting that the trade-off hinges on <lens>.
  1. Decision-lens pointer
  • For builders choosing between <A> and <B>, prior systems provide concrete instantiations on both sides (X [@a]; Y [@b]; Z [@c]).
  1. Evaluation-lens pointer (still evidence-neutral)
  • Across commonly used agent evaluations, systems such as X [@a] and Y [@b] illustrate how <lens> is operationalized, while Z [@c] highlights a different constraint.
  1. Contrast without list voice
  • While many works operationalize <topic> via <mechanism> (X [@a]; Y [@b]), others treat it as <alternative> (Z [@c]), which changes the failure modes discussed later.

Anti-patterns (high-signal “budget dump” voice)

Avoid these stems (they read like automated injection):

  • A few representative references include ...
  • Notable lines of work include ...
  • Concrete examples include ...

If your draft contains these, rewrite them immediately using the patterns above (keep citation keys unchanged).

Placement guidance

  • Prefer inserting citations where the subsection already states a concrete contrast or decision lens.
  • If you must add a new sentence/mini-paragraph, place it early (often after paragraph 1) so it reads as positioning, not as an afterthought.
  • Keep injections subsection-specific: mention the subsection lens (H3 title / contrast_hook) so the same sentence cannot be copy-pasted into every H3.

Workflow

  1. Read the budget report (output/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md)
  • Treat Global target (policy; blocking) as the PASS line for the pipeline gate (derived from queries.md:citation_target; A150++ default: recommended).
  • If Gap: 0, do nothing: write a short PASS report and move on.
  • Otherwise, for each H3 with suggested keys, pick enough keys to close the gap to target:
    • small gaps: 3-6 keys / H3
    • A150++ gaps: often 6-12 keys / H3 Prefer keys that are unused globally and avoid repeating the same new keys across many H3s.
  1. Inject in the right subsection
  • Use outline/outline.yml to confirm H3 ordering and ensure the injected sentence lands inside the correct ### subsection.
  1. Inject with paper voice
  • Prefer one short, axis-anchored sentence over a long enumerator sentence.
  • Keep injections evidence-neutral (NO NEW FACTS) and avoid new numbers.
  • Before you commit an injected key, confirm it exists in citations/ref.bib.
  1. Write output/CITATION_INJECTION_REPORT.md
  • Record which H3s you touched and which keys were added.
  • Mark - Status: PASS only when the global target is met.
  1. Verify
  • Rerun the validator script (below) to recheck the global target.
  • Then run draft-polisher to smooth any residual injection voice (citation keys must remain unchanged).

Done criteria

  • output/CITATION_INJECTION_REPORT.md exists and is - Status: PASS.
  • pipeline-auditor no longer FAILs on “unique citations too low”.

Script (optional; deterministic injector + validator)

You usually do not run this manually; it exists so a pipeline runner can deterministically apply a baseline injection and validate the target.

Quick Start

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

All Options

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

Examples

  • After you generate the budget report and want the script to apply the baseline injection:
    • python .codex/skills/citation-injector/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

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