Audit Guide

How to use the paper-audit skill and interpret its results.

Quick Start

# Basic quick audit
python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode quick-audit

# Deep review
python scripts/audit.py paper.tex --mode deep-review

# Quality gate (pass/fail)
python scripts/audit.py paper.pdf --mode gate --pdf-mode enhanced

# Chinese thesis
python scripts/audit.py thesis.tex --lang zh --venue thesis-zh

Mode Selection Guide

Scenario	Recommended Mode	Why
"Is my paper ready to submit?"	quick-audit	Fast readiness analysis
"I have three days before submission"	quick-audit	Final-week mechanical readiness screen
"What would reviewers say?"	deep-review	Reviewer-style issue bundle and roadmap
"Can my student submit this?"	gate	Fast pass/fail check
"Quick sanity check before deadline"	gate	Fastest, checks essentials only
"I want detailed feedback"	deep-review	Most comprehensive output

Understanding the Report

Quick-Audit Report

The quick-audit report contains:

1. Executive Summary: Overall score and issue count at a glance
2. Scores Table: Per-dimension scores with issue counts (Critical/Major/Minor)
3. Issues List: All findings sorted by severity
4. Pre-Submission Checklist: Pass/fail for each checklist item
5. PRESUBMISSION findings: deterministic final-week checks for em dashes, AI-tone term frequency, abstract result gaps, LaTeX citation/label/equation hygiene, paragraph-shape weak signals, and concrete captions

How to read scores:

• 5.0+: Excellent — minor polish only
• 4.0-5.0: Good — address Major issues
• 3.0-4.0: Needs work — significant revisions required
• < 3.0: Major concerns — consider restructuring

Deep Review Report

The deep review workflow now produces two complementary reviewer artifacts:

• review_report.md: the evidence-rich audit bundle with structured major / moderate / minor findings, committee outputs, and roadmap details
• peer_review_report.md: a polished journal-style reviewer report with Summary, Major Issues, Minor Issues, and Recommendation

The deep review report adds:

• Overall Assessment: short calibrated reviewer summary
• Major / Moderate / Minor Issues: quote-anchored structured findings
• Revision Roadmap: prioritized fix list
• Recommendation: score summary, if requested
• Phase 0 Automated Findings: script context, including PRESUBMISSION findings. Full/editor focus may promote high-signal mechanical issues into the pre_submission_readiness lane; methodology/theory/literature/logic focus keeps them out of the final focused bundle.

The peer review report adds:

• Summary: 1-2 concise paragraphs in academic-review tone
• Major Issues: numbered validity-threatening concerns with section or quote anchors
• Minor Issues: numbered secondary concerns that still merit revision
• Recommendation: Accept | Minor Revision | Major Revision | Reject

Gate Report

Binary verdict:

• PASS: All mandatory checks passed, no critical issues
• FAIL: Blocking issues found — must fix before submission

PRESUBMISSION Major and Minor findings are advisory in gate; they do not fail the gate unless the script reports Critical.

Severity Mapping

PRESUBMISSION source taxonomy	quick/gate severity	deep-review bundle severity
CRITICAL	Critical / P0	major + gate blocker
MAJOR	Major / P1	moderate
MINOR	Minor / P2	minor or Phase 0 only

PDF Input Considerations

PDF mode has inherent limitations:

Feature	LaTeX/Typst	PDF Basic	PDF Enhanced
Section detection	Exact	Heuristic	Good
Math verification	Full	Unavailable	Unavailable
Format checking	Full	Skipped	Skipped
Figure references	Full	Skipped	Skipped
Grammar analysis	Full	Good	Good
Logic analysis	Full	Good	Good
Bibliography	Full	Skipped	Skipped
PRESUBMISSION text checks	Full	Text-only	Text-only
PRESUBMISSION source hygiene	Full	Skipped	Skipped

Recommendation: Use source files (.tex/.typ) whenever possible for maximum accuracy. Use PDF mode for quick reviews when source is unavailable; PDF mode will explicitly skip citation-tie, label, numbered-equation, and source-caption checks.

Addressing Issues

Priority Order

1. Critical (P0): Must fix — these will likely cause rejection
2. Major (P1): Should fix — these weaken the paper significantly
3. Minor (P2): Nice to fix — these improve polish

Common Critical Issues

• Missing figure/table references
• Compilation errors
• Placeholder text (TODO/FIXME)
• Author names in blind submission

Common Major Issues

• Long, convoluted sentences
• Logic gaps in methodology
• Missing baselines or ablations
• AI-trace patterns in writing

Common Minor Issues

• Minor grammar issues
• Inconsistent notation
• Style guide violations

Re-auditing After Fixes

After addressing issues, re-run the audit to verify improvements:

# Before fixes
python scripts/audit.py paper.tex -o report_before.md

# After fixes
python scripts/audit.py paper.tex -o report_after.md

Compare scores to track improvement.