submission-pipeline

name	submission-pipeline
description	Pre-submission review battery — runs the peer-reviewer, integrity-reviewer, and fact-checker agents plus the deterministic audits in parallel over the whole manuscript, dedupes, confidence-gates, and saves one go/no-go report.
user-invocable	true

Submission Pipeline

Core Rule

Before submission, run every reviewer lens at once, dedupe across them, keep only findings that survive a confidence gate, and produce a single go/no-go report with a submission checklist. This is breadth-first (the whole manuscript, all lenses) — distinct from /peer-review (one referee report) and /claim-check (depth on each claim). It reports; it does not edit. Fixing a flagged claim is the author's call (and a Protected Claim).

When to Use

Invoke with /submission-pipeline when:

• The manuscript is draft-complete and you want a pre-submission sweep
• You want to pre-empt Reviewer 2 across rigor, integrity, and facts in one pass
• Running headless (/submission-pipeline mode:headless) to produce a report artifact

Process

Phase 1 — Scope

1. Read MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md (thesis, contribution, venue) and assemble the manuscript file set (main.tex + \input sections). Note the target venue for /journal-fit.

Phase 2 — Parallel review (run together, don't serialize)

2. Dispatch in parallel:
   • peer-reviewer agent — novelty, soundness, claim↔evidence, structure, recommendation.
   • integrity-reviewer agent — overclaim, p-hacking/HARKing, citation misuse, missing limitations.
   • fact-checker agent — claim-by-claim Supported / Overstated / Unsupported / Uncited.
3. In parallel, run the deterministic + checklist audits and collect their results:
   • /citation-audit (dangling/orphan/malformed refs), current compile-gate verdict, figure-orphan state.
   • /stats-check (statistical reporting), /methods-review (reproducibility), /journal-fit (venue fit), /gap-finder (uncited/unsupported sweep).

Phase 3 — Dedupe & merge

4. Many lenses will flag the same sentence (e.g. an overclaim caught by peer-reviewer, integrity-reviewer, and fact-checker). Merge by (file, locator, claim) into one finding that records which lenses raised it (agreement = signal).

Phase 4 — Confidence gate

5. Keep a finding if any of:
   • a deterministic check produced it (dangling \cite, undefined ref, missing field) — always high-confidence;
   • ≥2 independent lenses agree on it;
   • it is a single-lens finding rated high-severity by that lens (e.g. an unsupported central claim). Drop or mark low-confidence the single-lens, low-severity findings so the report is signal, not noise. Log what was dropped (no silent truncation).

Phase 5 — Report

6. Write the report to reports/submission-review-<date>.md (and surface a summary). Include a go / revise / no-go recommendation tied to the findings, and a submission checklist.

Output Format

# Submission Review — <title> → <venue>   (<date>)
Recommendation: GO | REVISE | NO-GO  — <one-line reason>

## Blocking (must fix before submission)
- [file:locator] <finding> — lenses: {peer, integrity, fact, deterministic} — fix: <…>

## Should-fix
- ...

## Consider
- ...  (low-confidence / single-lens — listed, not emphasized)

## Deterministic status
- citation-gate: <pass/FAIL>   compile-gate: <pass/skip/FAIL>   figure-orphan: <clean/N>
- citation-audit: <N issues>   stats: <N>   methods reproducibility: <PASS/GAP list>

## Submission checklist
- [ ] All \cite resolve · compile clean · no orphan floats
- [ ] Limitations section present · no causal overclaim · effect sizes + CIs
- [ ] Venue: length / reference style / display-item limits (confirm in author guidelines)
- [ ] Data/code availability statement · declarations
- [ ] Abstract numbers match the body

## Dropped (low-confidence, for transparency)
- <count> single-lens low-severity findings

Pairs With

peer-reviewer / integrity-reviewer / fact-checker agents; /peer-review, /citation-audit, /stats-check, /methods-review, /journal-fit, /gap-finder; the citation-gate / compile-gate / figure-orphan hooks. Research analogue of the code kit's /review-pipeline.

Notes

• Headless (mode:headless): emits the report artifact to reports/ and a short summary; no interactive prompts.
• Never auto-edits. Every fix to a reported claim is a Protected Claim — the author decides. The pipeline's job is to find, dedupe, and rank.
• No silent caps. If coverage is bounded (e.g. only changed sections), say so in the report.
• Distinct from /project-health-style breadth: this is submission-readiness, gated on the venue and the cardinal rule.