메뉴
Write the final reproduction report for a paper — a per-claim comparison of reported vs reproduced values, overall fidelity, deviations, blockers, and next steps. Use as the last step of reproducing a paper, after claims have been attempted.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Read an academic paper and extract its method, datasets, hyperparameters, compute needs, and every reproducible quantitative result into structured claims. Use as the first step of reproducing a paper, after init_reproduction.
Reproduce the quantitative results of an academic paper. Use when asked to reproduce, replicate, or verify the results/numbers/tables/figures of a paper, given a link, PDF, arXiv id, or DOI (optionally with a reference GitHub repo). Orchestrates ingest → gap-analysis → plan → per-claim reproduction → report.
Analyze a paper's reference code repository against the paper to determine what is actually implemented versus missing, partial, or stubbed. Use when a GitHub repo (or local code) was provided for reproducing a paper, before planning the reproduction.
| name | repro-report |
| description | Write the final reproduction report for a paper — a per-claim comparison of reported vs reproduced values, overall fidelity, deviations, blockers, and next steps. Use as the last step of reproducing a paper, after claims have been attempted. |
Produce .repro/report.md: an honest, reviewable account of what reproduced and
what did not. Read config.json, claims.json, gap.md, and log.jsonl first;
call reproduction_status for the current table.
# Reproduction report: <session name>
- **Paper:** <source>
- **Reference repo:** <url or "none">
- **Date:** <date>
- **Environment:** <hardware, key dependency versions; point to .repro/env/setup.sh>
## Summary
<n> of <total> claims reproduced (within tolerance), <n> partial, <n> mismatch,
<n> blocked. One-paragraph verdict on overall reproducibility.
## Claim-by-claim
| status | claim | metric | reported | reproduced | rel. error | source | notes |
|--------|-------|--------|----------|------------|-----------|--------|-------|
| ✓/~/✗/⛔ | id | … | … | … | …% | Table/Fig | deviations |
## Deviations from the paper
Every difference between what you ran and what the paper describes (data, epochs,
model size, missing components, seeds, undocumented choices you had to make).
## Blockers
What prevented full reproduction (missing data, compute, broken/absent code) and
what each would require to resolve.
## Reproducibility assessment
Honest judgement: does the paper's central result hold up? How completely could it
be reproduced from the paper (+ repo)? Note where the repo was incomplete.
## Recommendations / next steps
Concrete actions to close remaining gaps.
Finish by summarizing the outcome to the user and pointing them at the report.