Agent skill
human-checkpoint
Record a human sign-off at a declared checkpoint (tick `Approve C*` in `DECISIONS.md`) so the pipeline can resume. **Trigger**: approve checkpoint, human approval, sign off, HITL, Approve C2, 审批, 签字, 人类检查点. **Use when**: A unit has `owner=HUMAN` and is BLOCKED waiting for a checkbox in `DECISIONS.md`. **Skip if**: The approval is already recorded (the checkbox is ticked). **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: Do not modify any content artifacts; only update `DECISIONS.md` (and optionally append a short sign-off note).
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/tree/main/.codex/skills/human-checkpoint
SKILL.md
Human Checkpoint (HITL sign-off)
Goal: make human approvals explicit and auditable, so downstream units can safely proceed.
This skill is intentionally simple: it standardizes how a human signs off in DECISIONS.md.
Inputs
Required:
DECISIONS.md
Optional:
UNITS.csv(to confirm which checkpoint is currently blocked, e.g.,C1/C2)STATUS.md(to confirm the current checkpoint)
Outputs
DECISIONS.md(updated checkbox + short sign-off note)
Procedure
-
Identify the blocked checkpoint
- Check the runner message (or
STATUS.md), or inspectUNITS.csvfor the firstowner=HUMANunit that isBLOCKED.
- Check the runner message (or
-
Open
DECISIONS.mdand find the approvals checklist- Look for a line like:
- [ ] Approve C2 ...
- Look for a line like:
-
Review the artifacts required by that checkpoint
- The pipeline doc (
pipelines/*.pipeline.md) usually lists what to review (e.g., protocol, outline, module plan). - If the checkpoint block is missing, add a short checklist into
DECISIONS.md(what you reviewed).
- The pipeline doc (
-
Approve
- Tick the checkbox:
- [x] Approve C* - Append a short note under the checkpoint block (recommended):
- Date
- Artifacts reviewed
- What you approved + constraints (if any)
- Signed by
- Tick the checkbox:
Acceptance
- The correct
Approve C*checkbox inDECISIONS.mdis ticked ([x]). - Any added sign-off note does not silently expand scope or contradict the run goal.
Troubleshooting
The approvals checklist is missing in DECISIONS.md
Fix:
- Run
pipeline-routerfor the relevant checkpoint block, or add a minimal block manually:
## Approvals (check to unblock)
- [ ] Approve C2
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?