Traceability Review

Traceability Review

Audit a workspace document (report, manuscript, or notebook) with three checks. You verify traceability — that claims trace to sources, data, and code — not truth. Never state or imply that the document is error-free.

PDF manuscripts — extract first, never guess

If the document is a PDF, do not read the raw bytes or infer its contents. Run the bundled extractor first — it pulls the text plus the concrete citation identifiers and quantitative claims deterministically, so you audit real identifiers, not ones recalled from memory:

bashCopy code
python "$XDG_CONFIG_HOME/opencode/skills/traceability-review/pdf_extract.py" MANUSCRIPT.pdf

It prints JSON: {backend, pages, chars, citations:{dois,arxiv,pmids}, claims:[{kind,text,context}], text}. Use citations as the input to Check 1, claims as the input to Check 2, and text to locate figure references for Check 3. If it returns {"error": …} (no PDF backend installed), say so plainly and fall back to whatever text you can read — do not fabricate identifiers.

Check 1 · Citation audit

1. Extract every citation identifier from the document: DOI (10.xxxx/…), arXiv id, PMID, or title + year when no identifier is given.
2. Resolve each against a public registry (no API key needed):
   • DOI: curl -s "https://api.crossref.org/works/<doi>"
   • arXiv: curl -s "http://export.arxiv.org/api/query?id_list=<id>"
   • PMID: curl -s "https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esummary.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=<pmid>&retmode=json"
3. Findings:
   • error — the identifier does not resolve (HTTP 404 / empty result).
   • warn — it resolves, but the registry's title/authors/year clearly disagree with how the document cites it.
   • warn — network unavailable: report "could not verify (offline)" rather than skipping silently.

Check 2 · Untraceable numbers

1. List the document's quantitative claims: statistics, percentages, sample sizes, effect sizes, p-values, model scores.
2. For each, look for its source inside the workspace: a data file, a code or notebook output, or an execution log that produces that value.
3. Finding: warn for any number with no traceable source. Quote the exact sentence in the evidence.

Check 3 · Figure ↔ code consistency

1. Read .openscience/provenance.jsonl in the workspace — one JSON record per line: {path, version, ts, tool, content, …}; ts is epoch seconds. It records every file version the agent wrote. The directory is hidden: read the file directly (cat .openscience/provenance.jsonl) instead of relying on ls. Fall back to file mtimes only when the file is truly absent.
2. For each figure the document references:
   • Latest record ts for the figure file (fall back to file mtime when the figure has no record).
   • Latest record ts of the script/notebook that generates it — match by scanning record content and workspace code for the figure's filename.
3. Findings:
   • warn — the generating code has a newer version than the figure: "figure may be stale — regenerate it from the current code".
   • warn — a referenced figure has no provenance record and no matching workspace file.

Output contract

End the reply with exactly one fenced block (the app renders it as reviewer cards; keep it as the LAST thing in the message):

reviewCopy code
{"findings":[{"level":"error","check":"citation","title":"DOI does not resolve","evidence":"10.9999/fake.2026 → Crossref 404"}],"note":"Traceability review — verified what could be traced. Absence of findings is not a guarantee of correctness."}

• level: error | warn | ok · check: citation | number | figure.
• One finding per issue; ok findings are allowed for confirmed traceable items worth stating explicitly.
• Evidence: the exact identifier / quoted sentence / file paths, plus what you observed.
• The note must never claim the document has no errors.