القائمة
Use before claiming results are publication-ready, before submitting manuscripts, or before sharing findings externally — requires fresh verification evidence for every claim
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Use during or after manuscript writing to verify every quantitative claim traces to actual data, every figure is script-generated, and all results including negative ones are reported
Use when starting any conversation involving research, hypotheses, experiments, data analysis, scientific claims, or manuscript writing — establishes how to find and use Eureka research skills
Use when a research design has been approved and needs to be broken into executable experiment steps — the research equivalent of an implementation plan
Use when creating, updating, or reviewing a research figure (plot, chart, brain map, heatmap, schematic) — guides chart-type selection, typography, colorblind-safe palette, layout, and journal-specific export specs. Dispatches a figure-reviewer subagent after rendering. Complements claims-audit (which checks figure integrity) by checking figure design.
Use when running any experiment or analysis — hypothesis and analysis plan must be registered before seeing results, the scientific equivalent of test-driven development
Use when writing a research manuscript — guides section-by-section writing with prerequisite gates, citation discipline, number traceability, and per-section subagent review. Activated after experiment results are reviewed and before claims-audit.
| name | verification-before-publication |
| description | Use before claiming results are publication-ready, before submitting manuscripts, or before sharing findings externally — requires fresh verification evidence for every claim |
Claiming results are publication-ready without verification is not confidence — it is a liability to your co-authors, your field, and your career.
Core principle: Evidence before submission, always.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.
NO SUBMISSION CLAIM WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't re-run the verification in this session, you cannot claim it is ready for submission.
BEFORE claiming publication-ready:
1. IDENTIFY: What evidence proves each claim?
2. RUN: Re-run key analyses fresh (not cached results)
3. READ: Full output, check every number
4. VERIFY: Does output match manuscript claims?
- If NO: State actual values with evidence
- If YES: State verification WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Claim ready for submission
Skip any step = asserting, not verifying
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Results are accurate | claims-audit PASS | "I checked last week" |
| Figures are correct | Re-generated figures match manuscript | "They look right" |
| Analysis is reproducible | Single command reproduces all results | "It worked on my machine" |
| Statistics are proper | hypothesis-first INTERPRET standards met (effect size + CI + correction) | "p-values are significant" |
| All results reported | Experiment log cross-referenced with manuscript | "Main results are in" |
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Should be ready now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident in the numbers" | Confidence is not evidence |
| "Checked last week" | Last week's check is not this week's evidence |
| "Just minor revisions since last check" | Minor changes can invalidate figures and tables |
| "Deadline pressure" | A retraction is worse than a delayed submission |
| "The reviewer will catch errors" | Peer review is not your QC pipeline |
| "I know this codebase" | Knowing the codebase does not prevent stale outputs |
| "Different wording so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
| "Co-authors approved it" | Co-authors approved what they saw, not what is current |
| "The analysis passed review last month" | Results are only as valid as the last verified run |
| "We've published this method before" | This manuscript's numbers still need fresh verification |
| "The figures look identical to the last version" | Look identical is not verified identical |
Complete every item before claiming submission-ready. No skipping.
Claims and Accuracy
docs/eureka/audits/YYYY-MM-DD-claims-audit.md frontmatter. Verify manuscript_hash and results_hash match the current manuscript + results. If hashes mismatch, soft-warn: the audit may be stale; consider re-running. Proceed at user's discretion (soft warning, not hard block)status: passed):
docs/eureka/audits/YYYY-MM-DD-claims-audit.mddocs/eureka/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review.md (research-reviewer ≥ 95/100)docs/eureka/novelty-audits/YYYY-MM-DD-novelty-audit.md (novelty-competitive-audit PASS)Figures
n, statistical test, error bar type (SEM/SD/95%CI), and center value (or confirms N/A for the figure type)Reproducibility
Review
Reporting Completeness
Manuscript Metadata
These must pass independently before the main checklist is considered complete.
reproduce.sh or equivalent exists, is committed, and runs end-to-endFailure on any sub-check item means the analysis is not reproducible. An irreproducible analysis cannot be submitted.
Results match manuscript:
PASS: [Re-run analysis] [Compare output values to Table 2] [All numbers match]
FAIL: "The numbers should match — I haven't changed anything"
Figures regenerated:
PASS: [Run figure scripts] [Diff outputs against manuscript PDFs] [Match confirmed]
FAIL: "The figure looks the same as last time"
Reproducibility verified:
PASS: [Run reproduce.sh from scratch in clean environment] [All results regenerated]
FAIL: "It worked on my machine before"
Statistics verified:
PASS: [Verify every result has effect size + 95% CI + correction method per docs/references/statistical-guide.md] [No uncorrected multiple comparisons]
FAIL: "The p-values are significant — statistics are fine"
Completeness verified:
PASS: [Cross-reference experiment log] [Every run in log accounted for in manuscript]
FAIL: "The main results are all in there"
Publication errors propagate. A wrong number in a published table becomes a cited number in the next paper, a misinterpreted figure becomes a consensus, and an irreproducible analysis becomes a failed replication. Post-publication corrections damage credibility and waste the field's resources. The gate function exists because the cost of verifying before submission is hours; the cost of a published error is years.
ALWAYS before:
Rule applies to:
eureka:claims-audit PASS — every claim must be traceable before this skill's checklist beginseureka:requesting-research-review PASS at ≥ 95/100 — scientific rigor validated by independent revieweureka:hypothesis-first INTERPRET standards met — every statistical result reports effect size, CI, and correction methodeureka:novelty-competitive-audit PASS — external competitiveness verified against recent literature (internal rigor is necessary but not sufficient for submission)eureka:using-eureka when submission intent is detecteddocs/references/statistical-guide.md — statistical reporting checklistdocs/references/data-checklist.md — data version locking, preprocessing reproducibility, raw→processed regenerationdocs/references/figure-guide.md — see sections "Figure Legend Requirements (Reviewer-Grade)" and "Common Reviewer Rejection Reasons for Figures" for the legend reporting checklist and the dynamite-plot anti-patterndocs/references/novelty-audit-guide.md — search strategy, preemption rubric, differentiation templates, verdict decision tree for the novelty-competitive-audit prerequisiteNo shortcuts for submission verification.
Re-run the analyses. Regenerate the figures. Check every number. THEN claim it is ready.
This is non-negotiable.
RIGID — The checklist is not optional. The gate function sequence is enforced. The Iron Law is not a guideline.
The only flexibility is in the tooling used to re-run analyses — adapt scripts, commands, and environments to your domain. The requirement to produce fresh verification evidence before claiming submission-readiness does not flex.