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).
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.mddirectly 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.mdoutput/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md(fromcitation-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).
- 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.
- Parenthetical grounding (short, low-risk)
... (e.g., X [@a], Y [@b], Z [@c]).
- 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>.
- Decision-lens pointer
For builders choosing between <A> and <B>, prior systems provide concrete instantiations on both sides (X [@a]; Y [@b]; Z [@c]).
- 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.
- 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
- Read the budget report (
output/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md)
- Treat
Global target (policy; blocking)as the PASS line for the pipeline gate (derived fromqueries.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.
- Inject in the right subsection
- Use
outline/outline.ymlto confirm H3 ordering and ensure the injected sentence lands inside the correct###subsection.
- 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.
- Write
output/CITATION_INJECTION_REPORT.md
- Record which H3s you touched and which keys were added.
- Mark
- Status: PASSonly when the global target is met.
- Verify
- Rerun the validator script (below) to recheck the global target.
- Then run
draft-polisherto smooth any residual injection voice (citation keys must remain unchanged).
Done criteria
output/CITATION_INJECTION_REPORT.mdexists and is- Status: PASS.pipeline-auditorno 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 validatesoutput/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>
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated 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。
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`.
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。
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)。
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。
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。
Didn't find tool you were looking for?