メニュー
Use when preparing, auditing, releasing, or rebuttal-hardening academic manuscripts, datasets, artifacts, reviewer packets, or claim registers involving multiple refs, local assets, human labels, or agent-assisted drafts.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Use when AI-assisted thesis edits risk claim drift, scope creep, loss of author control, or repeated revisions that fail to converge; provides spine cards, edit contracts, drift audits, revision escalation, and human gates.
Stop repeated failed writing, coding, manuscript, rebuttal, or restructuring revisions when the same issue has gone through 3+ unsatisfactory edits, vague feedback such as still wrong/weird/unclear/weak/越改越乱, version contamination, or possible gap/claim/evidence/venue-fit drift.
Build and audit the manuscript argument system: intent, gap-contribution alignment, hierarchical claims, evidence balance, limitations, and reviewer attack surfaces. Use when a paper, thesis chapter, review article, or rebuttal needs explicit intent registers, contribution chains, claim hierarchy, argument maps, evidence-fit checks, or reviewer-risk matrices before drafting, revision, peer review, or self-review.
Review another author's manuscript, paper, thesis chapter, proposal, or preprint as an external reviewer. Use when asked to evaluate novelty, significance, gap-contribution fit, claim-evidence adequacy, methods, evaluation, overclaim risks, structure, writing, required revisions, or recommendation without rewriting the manuscript or using private author context.
Review the user's own manuscript, paper, thesis chapter, rebuttal, or release packet with clean-room anti-contamination controls. Use when asked for self-review, internal review, pre-submission review, readiness check, reviewer simulation on own work, or claim-evidence self-audit where prior chat memory, unstated assumptions, model background knowledge, or unlisted local notes must not be treated as evidence.
Reframe academic manuscript drafts that read like engineering reports, module inventories, internal validation packets, or system notes into paper-form scientific arguments with clear gap, contribution chain, results narrative, figure/table roles, AI-assisted component boundaries, and submission-readiness blockers.
| name | release-governance |
| description | Use when preparing, auditing, releasing, or rebuttal-hardening academic manuscripts, datasets, artifacts, reviewer packets, or claim registers involving multiple refs, local assets, human labels, or agent-assisted drafts. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, Edit, Write |
Prepare release-facing academic artifacts with explicit evidence control. The core rule is:
release truth = ref + artifact + gate
Do not infer release truth from memory, a branch name, a pull request title, a local file cache, or an agent draft.
This skill activates on: release governance, release evidence, camera-ready, rebuttal packet, artifact packet, claim ledger, human evidence gate, release packet, /release-governance.
Use references/evidence_state_schema.md for the shared states:
draft_advisoryverified_artifacthuman_finalhuman_final requires an explicit human confirmation gate when the project schema provides one. Agent drafts, reviewer suggestions, generated summaries, simulations, and prefilled labels stay draft_advisory.
Create release/release_scope.md with scope date, artifact name, intended use, included refs, excluded refs, and the highest-risk open question.
Run narrow ref checks before reading a checkout as final state:
git fetch --all --prune
git status --short --branch
git worktree list --porcelain
git branch --all --verbose --no-abbrev
Create release/canonical_refs.csv. Detached HEADs are acceptable only when the exact SHA is recorded.
Create release/local_asset_inventory.csv to separate tracked, ignored, untracked, external-store, and generated assets. Local assets may support review, but release claims require an artifact anchor or explicit exclusion.
Create:
release/artifact_anchors.csvrelease/claim_ledger.csvrelease/evidence_gates.csvEvery paper-facing number, qualitative conclusion, table value, figure, dataset count, and human-label claim should point to the artifact and gate that support it.
Gemini or another agent may review the scope, packet, or diff, but its result is advisory. Record advisory review in the verification report without changing any evidence state to human_final.
Use references/release_workflow_templates.md for columns and report structure. If Python is available, run:
python {skill_dir}/scripts/check_release_packet.py <project_root>
The helper checks required packet files, CSV/JSON/YAML readability, evidence-state values, required columns, local absolute paths, and obvious template markers. YAML files use PyYAML when installed; otherwise the helper applies a basic local syntax check for simple mappings and lists. It does not run experiments, access networks, push branches, or judge scientific validity.
Stop and report a blocker if: