paper-sanity-checker

name	paper-sanity-checker
description	Sanity-check an arXiv paper against its own released evidence by mirroring the paper, its companion code repos, its companion websites, and (optionally) its cited papers into a NotebookLM notebook, priming it as a vigorous reviewer, and running a battery of probes that must cite specific source lines for every finding. Targets paper/code drift, undocumented methodological choices, dataset issues, and reporting selection — i.e. the failure modes that surface when a paper is not independently reviewed.
when_to_use	User wants to sanity-check, audit, pressure-test, or find issues in an arXiv paper. Triggers on phrases like 'sanity check this paper', 'is this paper correct', 'find issues in', 'pressure test', 'fact check', or when the user supplies an arXiv id/URL with critical intent. Do NOT use for plain summarization — use the nlm skill directly for that.
allowed-tools	Bash(arxiv:*), Bash(nlm:*), Bash(git clone:*), Bash(git rev-parse:*), Bash(curl:*), Bash(churl:*), Bash(html2md:*), Bash(grep:*), Bash(sed:*), Bash(awk:*), Bash(sort:*), Bash(find:*), Bash(ls:*), Bash(mkdir:*), Bash(cat:*), Bash(rm:*), Bash(wc:*), Bash(xargs:*), Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep

paper-sanity-checker — sanity-check a paper against its own evidence

Goal: pressure-test a paper (given an arXiv id or URL) for factual errors, unsupported claims, and prose/data mismatches. Do this by assembling a corpus of verifiable sources (paper + linked code + linked websites + optionally cited papers) into a NotebookLM notebook, then running probes that must cite specific source lines for every finding.

NotebookLM can only verify against sources it has. Curating the corpus is the experiment — do not skip steps 2–4.

Inputs

• An arXiv id (<arxiv-id>, e.g. of the form YYMM.NNNNN) or URL (https://arxiv.org/abs/<arxiv-id>). Strip any vN version suffix.
• If the user hasn't provided one, ask before starting any work.

The skill assumes arxiv, nlm, git, curl, churl, and html2md are on $PATH. (churl is required for SPA companion sites; without it the skill falls back to a degraded single-page curl | html2md and flags the gap.) Tool-specific concerns (auth state, quotas, retry behavior) belong to those tools' own skills — surface failures to the user and let those skills handle the recovery.

Output location. Intermediate artifacts and the final report go under ~/.paper-sanity-checks/<slug>/, not the current working directory. This survives cd between runs, keeps audits from polluting unrelated projects, and groups all paper audits in one obvious place. The slug is the arXiv id (no v suffix). The user may override with the PAPER_SANITY_HOME environment variable.

Phases

Run phases sequentially. Pause for user input at the explicit checkpoints — don't blast through.

---

Phase 1 — Resolve the paper

ID=<id>                                                   # normalized, no vN
WORK="${PAPER_SANITY_HOME:-$HOME/.paper-sanity-checks}/$ID"
mkdir -p "$WORK"
arxiv fetch "$ID"                                         # populates ~/.cache/arxiv/src/<YYMM>/<id>
arxiv get "$ID"                                           # title, authors, abstract
arxiv pack -bib -o "$WORK/paper.txtar" "$ID"              # flags MUST precede the positional id

Tell the user where $WORK resolved to (e.g. ~/.paper-sanity-checks/<arxiv-id>/) so they know where the artifacts will land. If $WORK already exists from a prior run, do not clobber — the skill should be re-runnable and incremental, picking up where a previous run left off.

Show the user the title and authors. Confirm it's the right paper before spending the rest. Wrong-paper audits are worse than none.

If arxiv fetch fails, show the error and stop. Do not invent the paper from memory.

---

Phase 2 — Discover linked artifacts

Read the TeX sources and extract every URL:

SRC=$HOME/.cache/arxiv/src/${ID%%.*}/$ID
grep -hoE 'https?://[^[:space:]}{,)\\"]+' "$SRC"/*.tex \
  | sed -E 's/[.,;:]+$//' \
  | sort -u > "$WORK/links.txt"

Classify each link into:

• github — github.com/<owner>/<repo> (normalize: strip /tree/..., /blob/..., trailing .git, dedupe)
• arxiv — arxiv.org/abs/<id>
• web — everything else

Write the classification to $WORK/links.tsv (kind<TAB>url).

Show the user the full classified list, then ask which to mirror. The default policy is narrow — only artifacts the paper presents as its own deliverables, not arbitrary references it happens to link.

For each github link, classify by the surrounding TeX context:

• PRIMARY — appears in a sentence with "Code:", "We release …", "Our implementation", "Companion repo", or in an "Artifacts" / "Reproducibility" section. These are what the paper offers as its evidence. Mirror by default.
• ILLUSTRATIVE — appears as an example, motivating case, or background reference ("e.g., …", "see …", "we probed against repositories at …", "the official writeups at …"). These are targets of the experiment, not evidence for the experiment's conclusions. Skip by default; offer to the user as opt-in. Including them in the corpus invites NotebookLM to conflate "the data the paper analyzed" with "the paper's own evidence".
• OTHER — boilerplate links (license badges, CI status, generic tools). Skip.

For web links, only mirror the explicitly named companion site/project page. Skip blog mentions, social links, and generic references unless the user opts in.

For cited arXiv papers, ask. Default no — papers can cite hundreds, and the corpus cap matters more than coverage. Exception: when a paper's headline contribution depends on a specific cited claim — e.g. "we falsify X", "we extend Y", "this contradicts Z" — that cited work is structurally part of the evidence and should be mirrored by default. Identify these by reading the abstract and introduction; flag any "falsifies" / "extends" / "refutes" / "improves on" claims and propose mirroring the corresponding cited paper. Without it, probe 5 (citation misuse) cannot evaluate whether the cited paper supports the claim being attributed to it.

Show the proposed mirror set with reasons next to each item, then wait for the user's selection before proceeding. Make it easy to override: "primary only" / "primary + illustrative" / "all" / explicit list.

---

Phase 3 — Mirror artifacts

Idempotent — skip anything already on disk. Always continue past individual failures and record them so the report can flag the gap.

For each selected link:

github — shallow clone, with idempotent recovery from half-clones:

slug=$(echo "$url" | sed -E 's#^https?://github\.com/##; s#/#__#g')
dest="$WORK/mirror/repos/$slug"
# A half-clone leaves only .git/ behind. Detect by checking whether the work
# tree has any non-.git entry; if not, wipe and reclone.
if [[ -d "$dest" ]] && [[ -z "$(find "$dest" -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 ! -name .git -print -quit)" ]]; then
  rm -rf "$dest"
fi
if [[ ! -d "$dest" ]]; then
  if ! git clone --depth=1 --quiet "$url" "$dest" 2>/dev/null; then
    rm -rf "$dest"
    echo "FAILED clone: $url" >> "$WORK/mirror/errors.log"
  fi
fi

web — fetch the companion site with churl (https://github.com/tmc/cdp/cmd/churl), a Chrome-DevTools-Protocol-driven fetcher that returns post-render HTML. Companion sites are commonly Vite/React/Next SPAs whose useful content only appears after JS execution; plain curl would get a 1–2KB shell.

churl is a single-page renderer — recursive/mirror flags (-m, -r, -l, -P) are unimplemented and rejected. For companion sites with multiple routes, only the entry URL is fetched. In practice most paper companion sites are single-route SPAs with all data inlined, so this is sufficient; if a site has per-section URLs the user cares about, add each as its own opted-in URL during phase 2.

hostpath=$(echo "$url" | sed -E 's#^https?://##; s#[?#].*$##; s#/$##')
sitedir="$WORK/mirror/web/$hostpath"
mkdir -p "$sitedir"
html="$sitedir/index.html"
md="$sitedir/index.md"

if ! churl -o "$html" "$url" 2> "$sitedir/.churl.log"; then
  echo "FAILED churl: $url (see $sitedir/.churl.log)" \
    >> "$WORK/mirror/errors.log"
fi

if [[ -s "$html" ]]; then
  html2md < "$html" > "$md" 2>/dev/null || rm -f "$md"
fi

# Sanity-check: did we get real prose or an SPA shell churl couldn't
# render?  Treat <256 bytes or fewer than 2 long-text lines as suspect.
if [[ -s "$md" ]]; then
  size=$(wc -c < "$md" | tr -d ' ')
  body_lines=$(grep -cE '[[:alpha:]]{20,}' "$md" || true)
  if (( size < 256 )) || (( body_lines < 2 )); then
    echo "SUSPICIOUS web mirror (size=${size}B body_lines=${body_lines}): $url" \
      >> "$WORK/mirror/errors.log"
  fi
fi

If churl isn't on $PATH, fall back to curl -fsSL --max-time 30 "$url" | html2md, record a gap in errors.log, and tell the user to go install github.com/tmc/cdp/cmd/churl@latest before re-running — the plain-curl fallback misses any JS-rendered content.

When a web mirror still looks empty, also check whether the same content might be available inside one of the mirrored repos (companion sites are often Vite/React apps with the prose in a website/ or docs/ directory). If so, recommend the user drop the web mirror — the repo source is strictly better.

arxiv (cited papers, if user opted in):

cid=$(echo "$url" | sed -E 's#^https?://arxiv\.org/abs/##; s#v[0-9]+$##')
arxiv fetch "$cid" >/dev/null 2>&1 \
  || echo "FAILED: arxiv $cid" >> "$WORK/mirror/errors.log"

After mirroring, show the user a summary:

• N repos cloned (list owner/repo)
• N web pages mirrored
• N arxiv papers fetched
• Contents of $WORK/mirror/errors.log if non-empty

If any websites came back empty, tell the user they were likely JS-rendered SPAs and suggest reviewing them manually.

---

Phase 4 — Build the notebook

Create the notebook. Defer to the nlm skill for any error handling; surface its message to the user and wait for them to act on it (free a slot, refresh auth, etc.) — don't try to repair the account state from this skill.

NB=$(nlm notebook create "sanity: $ID — <short-title>") \
  || { echo "create failed; see error above and resolve before retrying"; exit 1; }
echo "$NB" > "$WORK/notebook-id"

If nlm reports the account is at the notebook cap, do not silently reuse an existing notebook — that pollutes unrelated work. Wait for the user to free a slot, then re-run this phase.

Upload the paper first so its name is unambiguous:

nlm source add --name "paper:$ID" "$NB" "$WORK/paper.txtar"

Each cloned repo as one txtar source. Defer to the nlm skill for the upload mechanics (chunk sizing, exclude patterns for ML repos, retry classification) — don't reinvent that knowledge here.

for d in "$WORK"/mirror/repos/*/; do
  name=$(basename "$d" | sed 's/__/\//')
  nlm sync --name "repo:$name" "$NB" "$d" \
    || echo "sync failed: $name" >> "$WORK/mirror/errors.log"
done

After all uploads, list the notebook to confirm coverage and show the user both the source list and any errors from mirror/errors.log before running probes:

nlm source list "$NB"
cat "$WORK/mirror/errors.log" 2>/dev/null

Partial uploads are acceptable for the run if the gaps are clearly data files (CSVs, large JSON dumps) rather than source code. Note any gap so probe results can flag it as a known limitation rather than a verdict.

Each web markdown:

while IFS= read -r f; do
  rel=${f#"$WORK"/mirror/web/}
  nlm source add --name "web:${rel%.md}" "$NB" "$f"
done < <(find "$WORK/mirror/web" -type f -name '*.md' 2>/dev/null)

Each cited arxiv (only those the user opted into):

for cid in <list>; do
  d="$HOME/.cache/arxiv/src/${cid%%.*}/$cid"
  nlm sync --name "arxiv:$cid" "$NB" "$d"
done

Set the chat instructions so every probe runs under the reviewer persona:

nlm chat instructions set "$NB" "$(cat skills/paper-sanity-checker/chat-instructions.md)"

Show the user nlm source list "$NB" and ask whether to add or remove sources before running probes. This is the corpus checkpoint — don't skip it.

---

Phase 5 — Run probes

For each probe under skills/paper-sanity-checker/prompts/, run a fresh one-shot chat (no conversation id — probes are independent). Use nlm generate-chat (the non-interactive primitive — nlm chat opens a conversation we don't need) with --citations stream so every claim must cite a source.

Probes are independent, so run them in parallel — serial on 8 probes adds ~5–10 minutes of needless wall-clock. Cap parallelism modestly (4) to stay inside NotebookLM's per-account rate envelope:

mkdir -p "$WORK/out"
SKILL_DIR=<absolute path to this skill dir>   # resolve before launching probes

run_probe() {
  local p="$1"
  local name; name=$(basename "$p" .md)
  echo "running probe: $name" >&2
  if ! nlm generate-chat --citations stream "$NB" "$(cat "$p")" \
       > "$WORK/out/$name.md"; then
    echo "probe failed: $name" >&2
  fi
}
export -f run_probe
export NB WORK

find "$SKILL_DIR/prompts" -maxdepth 1 -type f -name '*.md' -print0 \
  | xargs -0 -n1 -P4 bash -c 'run_probe "$0"'

If xargs -P isn't available or the user prefers serial output (e.g. debugging a single probe), fall back to a for loop — same body, just sequential.

Probes you'll run (curated under prompts/):

1. 01-claims-vs-evidence — every headline claim, with verdict + cited line.
2. 02-numbers-vs-tables — prose numbers vs. tables vs. raw repo data.
3. 03-code-vs-paper — does the released code actually do what the paper describes? Are the algorithms in the repo what the methods section describes?
4. 04-reproducibility — could a competent reader reproduce results from what's released? Specifically flag missing seeds, configs, datasets, eval harnesses.
5. 05-citation-misuse — does each cited paper actually support the claim it's attached to (when the cited paper was mirrored)?
6. 06-internal-consistency — notation drift, definition mismatches across sections, contradictions between abstract/intro/body/conclusion.

---

Phase 6 — Aggregate and hand off

Build $WORK/report.md with this structure:

# Sanity report: <title> (arxiv:<id>)

## Summary
<bulleted list of every UNSUPPORTED / CONTRADICTED / MISMATCH finding,
each with a one-line description and a link to the per-probe section below>

## Corpus
- paper:<id>
- repo:<owner>/<repo> (× N)
- web:<host><path> (× N)
- arxiv:<cited-id> (× N)
- gaps: <contents of mirror/errors.log, if any>

## Probe 1 — Claims vs. evidence
<contents of out/01-claims-vs-evidence.md>

## Probe 2 — Numbers vs. tables
... etc.

Then tell the user:

• Notebook id (and how to open it: nlm chat $NB)
• Path to $WORK/report.md
• Suggested follow-up: nlm chat $NB to drill into any flagged finding — the chat instructions are already set to the reviewer persona, so they can ask follow-ups directly without re-priming.

---

Anti-patterns (do not do these)

• Don't summarize from prior knowledge. Every finding must cite a specific source line in the notebook. If a probe answer doesn't cite, re-run with "cite the specific source line; if you can't, say so."
• Don't auto-clone arbitrary URLs. Confirm the mirror set with the user. Some papers link to private infra or huge datasets.
• Don't skip the corpus checkpoint. The corpus is the experiment.
• Don't conflate "paper says X" with "X is true." The probes ask whether the paper's evidence supports its claims.
• Don't write findings as soft critique. "This could be clarified" is not a sanity finding. Either evidence supports the claim or it doesn't.