presubmit-checks - SKILL.md Agent Skill

name: presubmit-checks user_invocable: true description: Pre-submission checklist for LaTeX papers. Runs several checks in parallel — references, LaTeX cleanup, build, and front matter — then presents a unified report. Use before submitting or sharing a paper draft.

presubmit-checks — Paper Pre-Submission Checklist

Run a comprehensive set of checks on a LaTeX paper before submission.

When to Use

"presubmit check", "check before I submit", "is my paper ready?"
Before submitting to a journal or conference
Before sharing a draft with co-authors

Checks

The skill runs these checks, ideally in parallel via subagents:

1. References (subagent: check-refs skill)

Verify all cited papers exist in academic databases. Flag unverified entries, suggest missing DOIs.

2. LaTeX cleanup (subagent: latex-cleanup skill)

Run the full latex-cleanup checklist: common issues, style consistency, draft artifacts, cross-references, typography, and missing figures.

3. Build check

If a Makefile exists, run make and check for:

Compilation errors
Undefined references (LaTeX Warning: Reference ... undefined)
Missing citations (LaTeX Warning: Citation ... undefined)
Overfull hboxes (badly broken lines) Report warnings count and list the critical ones.

4. Figure format check

Scan for all figures included in the paper (\includegraphics, \input for pgf/tikz). For each figure file:

Check the file extension — PDF, EPS, and PGF/TikZ are vector formats (good). PNG, JPG/JPEG, TIFF, and BMP are bitmap formats (flag).
For any bitmap figure found, report the filename, resolution if detectable, and file size.
Flag bitmap figures as blockers — they often indicate low-resolution images that will look poor in print.
Exception: photographs and screenshots are legitimately bitmap — note this but still flag for the user to confirm intentionality.

5. Front matter review

Read the paper and check:

Affiliations: List all authors and their affiliations. Flag if any author is missing an affiliation or if affiliations look incomplete (e.g., missing department, institution, or country).
Acknowledgements: Extract the acknowledgements section and list:
- All grant numbers / funding sources mentioned
- All individuals thanked (for discussions, feedback, etc.)
- Flag if the acknowledgements section is missing entirely
Code/data availability: Check for a data availability statement or code availability statement. Flag if missing — most journals now require one. Look for \dataavailability, \codeavailability, or sections titled "Data Availability", "Code Availability", "Data and Code Availability", etc.

Workflow

1. Find the paper

Same search logic as check-refs:

User-provided path
paper/current/main.tex
paper/main.tex
main.tex
Glob for **/*.tex with \begin{document}

2. Run checks in parallel

Launch subagents for independent checks:

Agent 1: Run check-refs (bibsleuth existence check)
Agent 2: Run latex-cleanup skill on the .tex file
Agent 3: Run make in the paper directory if Makefile exists
Agent 4: Figure format check — scan all \includegraphics paths and flag bitmap formats (PNG, JPG, TIFF, BMP)
Agent 5: Front matter review — read the paper and extract affiliations, acknowledgements (grants + people thanked), and code/data availability statements for the user to verify

3. Present unified report

Organize findings by severity:

Blockers (must fix):

Missing figures
Undefined references/citations
Compilation errors
Retracted citations
Bitmap figures (PNG, JPG, TIFF, BMP) — should be vector (PDF, EPS) unless intentionally raster (photos, screenshots)
Missing code/data availability statement (if journal requires it)

Warnings (should fix):

Unverified references
Draft artifacts (TODOs, commented-out text)
draft mode still enabled
Overfull hboxes
Missing or incomplete affiliations

For user to verify (cannot be auto-checked):

Affiliations — list all authors + affiliations for the user to eyeball
Acknowledgements — list all grants and people thanked so the user can confirm completeness
Code/data availability — show the statement for the user to review

Suggestions (nice to fix):

Missing DOIs/URLs in .bib
LaTeX style issues
Spacing/typography

5. Offer to fix

For each category, offer to fix what can be automated:

Apply .bib patches (DOIs, URLs)
Remove draft artifacts
Fix spacing issues
Ask before each category of changes

6. Offer content review

After presenting the report and addressing formatting/technical issues, offer: "Want me to run /critique-manuscript to check for content-level weaknesses reviewers might flag?"

This is a deeper, separate pass that evaluates the paper's substance (literature, methodology, claims, etc.) rather than its formatting and technical correctness.

Rules

Run all checks even if one fails — present a complete picture
Clearly separate blockers from suggestions — don't alarm about minor issues
Don't modify files without asking
If the paper doesn't compile, still run the other checks
Keep the final report concise — group similar issues rather than listing every overfull hbox