Pipeline Auditor (draft audit + regression)
Purpose: a deterministic “regression test” for the writing stage.
It answers:
- did we leak placeholders or planner talk?
- did citation scope drift?
- did the draft fall back to generator voice (navigation/narration templates)?
- is citation density/health sufficient for a survey-like draft?
This skill is analysis-only. It does not edit content. For survey/deep, style/citation-shape violations are blocking by default.
Inputs
output/DRAFT.mdoutline/outline.yml- Optional (recommended):
- outline/evidence_bindings.jsonl - citations/ref.bib
Outputs
output/AUDIT_REPORT.md
What it checks (deterministic)
A150++ citation targets (used by the auditor):
- Per-H3: >=12 unique citations (deep: >=14).
- Global: >=150 unique citations across the full draft (recommended target: 165; deep floor: 165).
- Placeholder leakage: ellipsis (
...,…), TODO markers, scaffold tags. - Outline alignment: section/subsection order vs
outline/outline.yml. - Survey tables (survey deliverable): require >=2 Markdown tables in the merged draft (index tables live in
outline/tables_index.md) (inserted bysection-mergerfromoutline/tables_appendix.md). - Paper voice anti-patterns:
- narration templates (This subsection..., In this subsection...) - slide navigation (Next, we move..., We now turn to...) - pipeline voice (this run, “pipeline/stage/workspace” in prose)
- Evidence-policy disclaimer spam: repeated “abstract-only/title-only/provisional” boilerplate inside H3 bodies.
- Meta survey-guidance phrasing:
survey synthesis/comparisons should.... - Synthesis stem repetition: repeated
Taken together,...and similar high-signal generator stems. - Numeric claim context: numbers without minimal evaluation context tokens (benchmark/dataset/metric/budget/cost).
- Citation health (if
citations/ref.bibexists): undefined keys, duplicates, basic formatting red flags. - Citation-shape hard gate (
survey/deep): no adjacent citation blocks ([@a] [@b]), no duplicate keys inside one block ([@a; @a]), and per-H3 mid-sentence citation ratio >=30%. - Citation scope (if
outline/evidence_bindings.jsonlexists): citations used per H3 should stay within the bound evidence set.
How to use the report (routing table)
Treat output/AUDIT_REPORT.md as a “what to fix next” router.
Common FAIL families -> responsible stage/skill:
- Placeholders / leaked scaffolds
- Fix: C2–C4 artifacts are not clean. Route to subsection-briefs / evidence-draft / writer-context-pack, then rewrite affected sections.
- Missing overview tables (draft has <2 tables)
- Fix: ensure table-schema + appendix-table-writer produced outline/tables_appendix.md (>=2 tables, citation-backed, no placeholders), then rerun section-merger (tables insert as an Appendix block by default).
- Planner talk in transitions / narrator bridges
- Fix: rerun transition-weaver (and ensure briefs include bridge_terms / contrast_hook), then re-merge.
- Narration templates / slide navigation inside H3
- Fix: rewrite the failing sections/S*.md via writer-selfloop (local, section-level) or subsection-polisher.
- Evidence-policy disclaimer spam
- Fix: keep evidence policy once in Intro/Related Work (front matter), delete repeats in H3 (use draft-polisher or local section rewrites).
- Citation scope drift (out-of-scope bibkeys)
- Fix: either (a) rewrite the subsection to stay in-scope, or (b) fix mapping/bindings (section-mapper → evidence-binder) and regenerate packs.
- Global unique citations too low
- Fix: citation-diversifier → citation-injector (NO NEW FACTS), then draft-polisher.
- Intro/Related Work too thin / too few cites
- Fix: rewrite the corresponding sections/S<sec_id>.md front-matter file via writer-selfloop (front-matter path) using dense positioning + method paragraph.
Prevention guidance (what upstream writers should do)
If you want the auditor to PASS *without* a heavy polish loop:
- Start each H3 with a content claim + thesis (avoid narration templates).
- Use explicit contrasts and at least one evaluation anchor paragraph.
- Embed citations per claim (avoid trailing cite dumps).
- Put evidence-policy limitations once in the front matter, not in every H3.
Script
Quick Start
python.codex/skills/pipeline-auditor/scripts/run.py --helppython.codex/skills/pipeline-auditor/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>
All Options
--workspace <dir>--unit-id <U###>(optional; for logs)--inputs <semicolon-separated>(rare override; prefer defaults)--outputs <semicolon-separated>(rare override; default writesoutput/AUDIT_REPORT.md)--checkpoint <C#>(optional)
Examples
- Run audit after
global-reviewerand before LaTeX/PDF:
- python.codex/skills/pipeline-auditor/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>
Troubleshooting
Issue: audit fails due to undefined citations
Fix:
- Regenerate citations with
citation-verifierand ensurecitations/ref.bibcontains every cited key.
Issue: audit fails due to narration-style navigation phrases
Fix:
- Rewrite as argument bridges (content-bearing handoffs, no navigation commentary) in the failing
sections/*files, then re-merge.
Issue: audit fails due to "unique citations too low"
Fix:
- Run
citation-diversifierto produceoutput/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md. - Apply it via
citation-injector(editsoutput/DRAFT.md, writesoutput/CITATION_INJECTION_REPORT.md). - Then run
draft-polisher→global-reviewer→ auditor.