Arxiv Preflight

Source: https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills

arXiv Preflight

Submission-readiness review for a manuscript before arXiv upload. The goal is not to judge whether a paper was AI-written from style. The goal is to find concrete, locatable, reviewable evidence of unchecked LLM output, hallucinated references, placeholder data, unsupported claims, and arXiv-policy risks — and to hand the author a fix list.

Anchor on the actual arXiv stance: authors may use generative AI tools but are fully responsible for the content and must disclose significant use per field norms; AI tools cannot be listed as authors. See references/arxiv_policy_notes.md for the exact language.

This skill is intentionally platform-neutral. It should work for any AI coding/review agent that can read files and run local Python scripts; it does not require OpenAI-specific UI metadata.

Requires Python 3.9+.

Workflow

1. Identify inputs. Ask for or detect: LaTeX project directory, single PDF, BibTeX file, supplementary figures/tables, or experiment data. Prefer LaTeX source over rendered PDF — PDF text extraction loses structure and produces noisier reference checks.

2. Extract manuscript text. Run scripts/extract_manuscript_text.py on the input. It merges \input/\include, strips LaTeX commands while preserving section/figure/table/citation keys, and falls back to PDF text extraction. Output: manuscript.json with sections, figures, tables, cite_keys, numbers, and warnings. Treat unresolved or skipped includes as review risks.

3. Hard-red-line scan. Run scripts/scan_ai_artifacts.py against the extracted text. It flags LLM meta-comments, prompt residue, placeholder content, TODO/TBD/XX%, and AI-listed-as-author. Patterns live in references/ai_artifact_patterns.md — extend the list when the user reports new failure modes. Any hit is a BLOCKER unless the user explicitly justifies it.

4. Verify references. Run scripts/verify_references.py on .bib (or extracted reference list). It performs (a) structural BibTeX checks, (b) external metadata lookup against Crossref / arXiv / OpenAlex / Semantic Scholar (in that order), (c) cite-key vs. \cite reconciliation. Grading and API strategy: references/reference_verification.md. If network is unavailable, mark this section INCOMPLETE rather than skipping silently.

5. Cross-check claims, numbers, and figure/table references. Use manuscript.json to review extracted numbers, labels, and references. This version exposes the raw structures for agent-assisted consistency review; it does not fully automate semantic claim verification. Surface candidate inconsistencies for the author to confirm, never rewrite their claims.

6. AI-use disclosure check. scripts/scan_ai_artifacts.py includes a limited disclosure heuristic for substantive LLM use. For nuanced cases, compare detected AI-assistance signals against the manuscript's Acknowledgments / Methods / Ethics sections yourself. Recommend disclosure only when significant use is evident; do not push boilerplate disclosure on every paper. Calibration: references/arxiv_policy_notes.md.

7. arXiv moderation pre-check. Do an agent-assisted scan for non-research content (opinion/proposal/course-project framing without research contribution), copyright risks (publisher PDFs, reviewer comments, unlicensed images, long third-party text), and salami/duplicate-submission signals. This version does not ship a dedicated moderation scanner. Do not predict whether arXiv will accept — only surface risk.

8. Generate report. Run scripts/generate_preflight_report.py to merge all JSON outputs into a single Markdown report. Format and decision rules: references/report_template.md.

Risk levels

• BLOCKER — evidence that should stop submission: LLM meta-comment in body text, AI listed as author, reference that cannot be matched in any external database, unfilled placeholder in a results table.
• HIGH — likely integrity or policy issue: DOI/title mismatch, cite-key pointing at wrong paper, a strong claim with no supporting number in the manuscript.
• MEDIUM — inconsistency, missing metadata, unclear disclosure, broken \ref.
• LOW — polish, formatting, capitalization.

Decision rule

• Any BLOCKER → HOLD.
• No blocker, any HIGH/MEDIUM → PASS_WITH_FIXES.
• Only LOW or clean → PASS.

Never upgrade a finding's severity to be safe and never silently soften it. If you are unsure, mark it MEDIUM and explain.

Rules

• Never call a paper AI-generated from writing style alone. Style is not evidence; meta-comments, fake citations, and placeholders are.
• Every finding must cite a location. File + line number for .tex/.bib; for PDF input, use the PDF file plus extracted-text line unless page-aware extraction is available. Include a verbatim short snippet (≤ 25 words). A finding without a location is a suggestion, not a finding — move it to "Recommended Cleanup".
• Treat external-metadata mismatches as leads. A single field disagreement (e.g., page numbers) is MEDIUM. Title + authors + year all unmatched across all four databases is BLOCKER.
• Network-incomplete is not network-pass. If reference lookups failed for connectivity reasons, the report's reference section is INCOMPLETE; the overall decision cannot be PASS.
• Do not rewrite the author's claims. Provide fixes, questions, and locations. Leave the rewriting to the author.
• Minimise false positives at the cost of recall. This tool runs before submission; a false BLOCKER is more costly than a missed LOW.

When to read which reference

• references/arxiv_policy_notes.md — when calibrating disclosure recommendations or moderation findings.
• references/ai_artifact_patterns.md — when extending or interpreting the artifact scanner's hits.
• references/reference_verification.md — when interpreting citation lookup output, deciding API order, or handling rate-limit / network failures.
• references/report_template.md — when writing or regenerating the final report.

MVP scope

This skill currently ships: text extraction, AI-artifact scan, BibTeX + DOI/arXiv-ID reference verification, extracted label/citation/number structures, and Markdown report generation. Out of scope for v1: full semantic peer review, full claim/result verification, automated moderation judgement, AI-writing probability scoring, automatic rewriting, automated arXiv upload, large-scale plagiarism detection. If the user asks for these, say so explicitly rather than approximating.