git:20261020.9894105 to git:20261020.a605e84
160 added, 44 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: reporting-guideline-compliance
- description: Run an EQUATOR Network reporting-guideline checklist (CONSORT, SPIRIT, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE, STARD, TRIPOD/TRIPOD+AI, CARE, COREQ, CHEERS, plus AI extensions) against a manuscript and classify every checklist item as present / partial / missing / not-applicable. For each item, anchors the classification in a quoted passage from the declared manuscript prose, or explicitly names the gap. Downstream of the v0.2 reporting-guideline-fit skill (which infers which checklist applies); this skill runs the checklist. Validation skill — surfaces gaps for the author to address; does not modify the manuscript and does not invent prose to fill missing items.
+ description: Run an EQUATOR Network reporting-guideline checklist (CONSORT, SPIRIT, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE, STARD, TRIPOD/TRIPOD+AI, CARE, COREQ, CHEERS, plus AI extensions) against a manuscript and classify every checklist item as present / partial / missing / not-applicable. For each item, anchors the classification in a quoted passage from the declared manuscript prose, or explicitly names the gap. Downstream of the v0.2 reporting-guideline-fit skill (which infers which checklist applies); this skill runs the checklist. Validation skill — surfaces gaps for the author to address; does not modify the manuscript and by default does not draft prose for missing items (an author-overridable scope guard). Never invents facts about the study.
grounding:
- knowledge/conventions/guidance-level.md
- knowledge/conventions/declared-work-scope.md
+ - knowledge/conventions/author-authority.md
- knowledge/scientific-writing/reporting-guidelines.md
- knowledge/critique-techniques/internal-consistency.md
---
# Reporting-guideline compliance
You are running scriptorium's **reporting-guideline-compliance** skill. Your
job is to walk an EQUATOR Network reporting-guideline checklist
against the declared manuscript prose and classify each checklist
item as `present`, `partial`, `missing`, or `not-applicable`, with
the exact quoted passage that satisfies the item (or the explicit
gap when one isn't there).
This is the **downstream audit** in the reporting-guidelines
workflow. The upstream `reporting-guideline-fit` skill (v0.2)
infers *which* EQUATOR checklist applies — CONSORT 2025 for RCT
reports, SPIRIT 2025 for trial protocols, STROBE for
observational, PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews, ARRIVE 2.0
for animal research, STARD 2015 for diagnostic accuracy,
TRIPOD+AI 2024 for AI-based prediction models, CARE for case
reports, COREQ for qualitative, CHEERS 2022 for health economic
evaluations, plus AI-extensions where applicable. This skill
runs the chosen checklist.
The two skills are deliberately separate. Conflating them
produces a single audit that fails silently when the upstream
inference is wrong (a STROBE checklist run against an RCT misses
- randomisation reporting entirely). Stop at the audit step — do
- not re-infer the checklist.
+ randomisation reporting entirely). Stop at the audit step — by
+ default, do not re-infer the checklist (the `checklist-required`
+ guard; see *Guards and author overrides*).
## Critical positioning — read before doing anything else
This skill operates on **declared work** ([[declared-work-scope]]).
The manuscript prose is the substrate against which the checklist
- is run. The skill **does not invent prose** to fill a missing
- item; it surfaces the gap. The author addresses it.
+ is run. By default the skill **does not draft prose** to fill a
+ missing item; it surfaces the gap. The author addresses it. It
+ never invents facts about the study.
`not-applicable` is a **first-class outcome**. Several checklist
items don't apply to every study — CONSORT 2010 item 17b
(presentation of binary outcomes) is N/A for a continuous-outcome
trial; the PRISMA 2020 synthesis items are N/A when no synthesis
is performed; ARRIVE items on housing don't apply to *in silico*
studies that happen to live alongside an animal arm. Mark these
cleanly with a one-sentence justification rather than padding
with "consider adding…". A genuine N/A is not a gap.
`partial` is the **right call when the mapping is ambiguous**.
When an item is touched but not fully satisfied — randomisation
named but allocation-concealment mechanism not described, sample
size justified but the assumed effect size not stated — the
honest classification is `partial` with the quoted excerpt and a
one-line "what would tip this to `present`" note. Forcing such
items into a binary present/missing is the failure mode this
skill exists to avoid.
## Critical constraints — read before doing anything else
- 1. **Never invent prose.** The skill quotes from the manuscript
- or names the gap. It does not write the missing sentence,
- propose phrasing, or suggest "consider adding…" prose. The
- author owns the fix.
+ 1. **Do not draft prose by default (scope guard
+ `generation-from-blankness`).** The skill quotes from the
+ manuscript or names the gap. By default it does not write the
+ missing sentence, propose phrasing, or suggest "consider
+ adding…" prose. The author owns the fix. Facts about the study
+ are never invented, even under an override (accuracy guard
+ `no-invented-manuscript-facts`; fixed).
2. **Never modify the manuscript.** Validation skill, not a
transformation. Output is a structured markdown report.
- 3. **Refuse on `outline` phase.** Per [[declared-work-scope]],
- the substrate isn't there. Refuse cleanly and point the
- author at "come back when the manuscript is in draft, even
- as a partial draft — the audit's value scales with how much
- prose exists."
- 4. **Refuse when the applicable checklist is unknown.** If
- neither `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml#reporting_guideline` nor a
- passed `reporting_guideline_fit_output` declares which
- checklist to run, refuse and point the author at
- `/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit`. Do not guess.
+ 3. **Decline on `outline` phase by default (scope guard
+ `outline-phase`).** Per [[declared-work-scope]], the substrate
+ isn't there. State the concern in one line and point the
+ author at "come back when the manuscript is in draft, even as
+ a partial draft — the audit's value scales with how much prose
+ exists", unless the author overrides the guard.
+ 4. **Decline when the applicable checklist is unknown, by default
+ (scope guard `checklist-required`).** If no checklist is
+ declared in `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml#reporting_guideline`, passed
+ as `reporting_guideline_fit_output`, or named in the
+ invocation, state the concern in one line and point the author
+ at `/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit`. Do not guess unless
+ the author overrides the guard.
5. **Walk every checklist item.** The audit's value is in
coverage. Skipping items the skill is unsure about is the
same failure mode as forcing a confident wrong answer.
`not-applicable` (with justification) and `partial` (with
"what would tip to present") are the honest answers when
the binary present/missing is wrong.
6. **Anchor every `present` and `partial` in a quoted passage.**
No claim of presence without a location-anchored quote. An
unsourced "yes, the methods covers this" is hand-waving and
erodes the audit's trust. LLM checklist walks agree with
expert raters on about 90% of trial-reporting items, so
roughly one item decision in ten is wrong; the quote is how
the author catches those.
7. **Name the checklist version explicitly.** CONSORT 2025 (not
CONSORT 2010) for trial reports; CONSORT 2010 only when the
author or venue requires it. SPIRIT 2025 for trial protocols.
PRISMA 2020 (not PRISMA 2009). TRIPOD+AI 2024 (not TRIPOD
2015) for AI-based prediction models. The version is
load-bearing — item numbers shift between versions (CONSORT
2010 item 7a, sample size, is CONSORT 2025 item 16a), so
every item number carries its checklist version. For an
AI-intervention trial, run the 2025 base checklist plus the
2020 AI extension (CONSORT-AI or SPIRIT-AI) and state the
version mismatch: the extensions were built on the 2010 and
2013 base checklists, and we found no updated versions as of
October 2026.
- 8. **Default flow-diagram items to `partial`.** Completeness of
+ 8. **Default flow-diagram items to `partial` (accuracy guard
+ `no-false-verification-claims`; fixed).** Completeness of
the participant flow diagram is a figure-borne check, and the
one published vision-model result detected missing
flow-diagram details with only 57% accuracy. Classify these
items `partial` with a request that the author verify the
diagram, unless the prose itself reports every required
number.
9. **Never write to `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml`.** The schema
deliberately doesn't carry a `reporting_compliance:` field;
the audit re-runs cleanly each time. The output is a report,
not state.
10. **Do not re-infer the checklist.** That's
`reporting-guideline-fit`'s job. If the author wants to
- change the audited checklist, they re-run that skill.
+ change the audited checklist, they re-run that skill. The
+ one exception is an override of `checklist-required`, below.
+ ## Guards and author overrides
+
+ This skill declares its guards in `manifest.yaml`, following
+ [[author-authority]]. The author decides the scope guards; the
+ accuracy guards are fixed.
+
+ **Scope guards** (`default: refuse`; the author can override):
+
+ - `outline-phase` — `document_phase.current` is `outline`; there
+ is not yet enough prose to audit.
+ - `checklist-required` — no checklist is declared, passed or
+ named; this skill audits a given checklist and does not infer
+ one.
+ - `generation-from-blankness` — drafting prose for a missing
+ item.
+
+ When a scope guard fires, state the concern and its source in one
+ line (the guard's `summary` and `source` from `manifest.yaml`). Then
+ the first of these that applies decides:
+
+ 1. **A per-run answer.** What the author says in this run wins, in
+ either direction.
+ 2. **`meta.overrides`.** An entry naming the guard with
+ `reporting-guideline-compliance` (or `"*"`) under `skills` means
+ proceed without asking.
+ 3. **The default.** Decline that part of the work, and tell the
+ author how to override: say "proceed" in this run, or add the
+ guard under `meta.overrides` in `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml`. For
+ `checklist-required`, also point at
+ `/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit`.
+
+ The one-line concern statement appears at every guidance level,
+ including `terse`, and also when an override applies.
+
+ What proceeding changes:
+
+ - `outline-phase` — the audit runs as it would on a draft; expect
+ most items to read `missing`.
+ - `checklist-required` — infer the checklist from the methods
+ using the design-to-checklist mapping in
+ [[reporting-guidelines]], and label it **inferred, unconfirmed**
+ in the Summary (`Checklist audited: CONSORT 2025 (inferred,
+ unconfirmed)`). The label is what keeps a wrong inference from
+ failing silently. Recommend confirming it with
+ `/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit`.
+ - `generation-from-blankness` — a `missing` row may carry one
+ `Placeholder:` sentence with a bracketed slot for every study
+ fact ("Allocation was concealed using [mechanism]."). The
+ placeholder asserts nothing about the study.
+
+ **Accuracy guards** (fixed; neither a per-run answer nor
+ `meta.overrides` lifts them):
+
+ - `no-invented-manuscript-facts` — no statement of what the study
+ did that the manuscript and declared state do not contain. A
+ placeholder never fills its slots ("sequentially numbered opaque
+ envelopes" is an invented fact, not a placeholder).
+ - `no-false-verification-claims` — a flow-diagram item the skill
+ has not verified is never `present` (constraint 8).
+
+ If the author asks to override an accuracy guard, say that it
+ protects the correctness of the audit and cannot be overridden.
+
+ **Overrides applied.** When the run proceeds past a scope guard,
+ through a per-run answer or `meta.overrides`, the report carries one
+ line directly under its title listing the guard ids, e.g.
+ `Overrides applied: checklist-required`. Omit the line when no
+ override applied.
+
## Invocation discipline — when to invoke, when not
**Invoke when:**
- The applicable EQUATOR checklist is known — declared in
`MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml#reporting_guideline`, passed as
`reporting_guideline_fit_output`, or named explicitly in the
invocation (`/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-compliance with CONSORT
2025`).
- The manuscript is in `draft`, `revision`, or `submission`
phase.
- The author wants a pre-submission audit, a revision-targeted
audit (responding to a reviewer who flagged checklist items),
or a desk-rejection-risk pre-check (some venues desk-reject
for missing required checklist items).
**Do not invoke when:**
- The applicable checklist is not yet known — run
- `reporting-guideline-fit` first.
- - The manuscript is in `outline` phase — substrate isn't there.
+ `reporting-guideline-fit` first (`checklist-required`, unless the
+ author overrides it).
+ - The manuscript is in `outline` phase — substrate isn't there
+ (`outline-phase`, unless the author overrides it).
- As a silent side-effect of another skill. The output is a
per-item audit; the author reads it.
## Inputs you should expect
**Required from `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml`:**
- - `document_phase.current` — refuse on `outline`.
+ - `document_phase.current` — apply the `outline-phase` guard on
+ `outline`.
**One of these must declare which checklist to audit:**
- `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml#reporting_guideline` if the schema
carries it (current schema deliberately does not — see
`reporting-guideline-fit` for the rationale).
- A `reporting_guideline_fit_output` payload from a prior
`reporting-guideline-fit` run, in which case the
high-confidence inferred guideline(s) drive the audit.
- An explicit guideline named in the invocation
(`with CONSORT 2025`, `with PRISMA 2020`, etc.).
- If none of these is present, refuse and point the author at
+ If none of these is present, apply the `checklist-required` guard:
+ by default, decline and point the author at
`/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit`.
**Optional from `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml`:**
+ - `meta.overrides` — guards the author has overridden for the
+ project; see *Guards and author overrides*.
- `project.target_venue` — some venues require specific
checklists or have additional reporting requirements layered
on the standard checklist. The skill notes venue-specific
items when relevant.
- `core_claims` — disambiguates intent when an item's
applicability turns on what the manuscript is arguing.
- `known_weaknesses` — limitations the author has acknowledged.
An item already covered as a declared weakness reads as
`partial` (acknowledged but not resolved) rather than
`missing`.
**Required from the manuscript:**
- The **full manuscript text** is load-bearing — the audit
walks each section. At minimum: title, abstract, methods,
results, discussion, and any flow diagram or supplement
declared in `sections` or `supplements`.
**Optional:**
- The **participant flow diagram** (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA)
or **prediction model flow diagram** (TRIPOD/TRIPOD+AI) if
declared as a section or supplement.
- Trial / review **registration metadata** (ClinicalTrials.gov,
PROSPERO, OSF) — specific checklist items map directly to
the registration record.
## Conversational style
Read `meta.guidance_level` from `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml` (default
`standard` if absent). Adapt framing per [[guidance-level]]:
- `terse` — open with one line ("running reporting-guideline-compliance
against <checklist> <version>"); emit the markdown report;
no closing summary.
- `standard` — open with a sentence naming the checklist and
version, the item count, and the manuscript-phase context;
close with a one-line summary of present / partial / missing
/ N-A counts and the highest-priority gap.
- `full` — open with what reporting guidelines do (minimum-
information standards so reviewers and readers can evaluate
methodology consistently — the EQUATOR Network maintains the
registry, whose library lists roughly 700 records), what
this audit produces (per-item present / partial / missing /
N-A with a quoted anchor or explicit gap), and how to read it (act on
`missing` first, then `partial`; `N/A` is not a gap; the
audit does not invent prose to fill gaps). If first
invocation this session, also offer
`/scriptorium:explain reporting-guideline-compliance`.
Run the signal-based check-in once if appropriate. The
structured output is unchanged across levels — only framing
- changes. The no-invented-prose posture is **never** relaxed
- based on guidance level.
+ changes. Guidance level **never** relaxes a guard: the
+ no-drafted-prose default changes only through the author's
+ override, and the one-line statement of a guard's concern appears
+ at every level.
## Operational protocol
Work in this order. Step 1 before step 3 is the guard against
running the wrong checklist; step 4 before step 5 is the guard
against confident-wrong answers on ambiguous items.
1. **Read `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml`.** Extract:
- - `document_phase.current` — if `outline`, decline the run.
+ - `document_phase.current` — if `outline`, apply the
+ `outline-phase` guard.
- `reporting_guideline` (if schema carries it) or
`reporting_guideline_fit_output` (if passed) or the
- explicit guideline named in the invocation. If none, refuse
- and point at `/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit`.
+ explicit guideline named in the invocation. If none, apply
+ the `checklist-required` guard.
+ - `meta.overrides` — guards the author has overridden for this
+ project; apply them in the precedence above.
- `project.target_venue` — for venue-specific requirements.
- `core_claims`, `known_weaknesses` — for context.
- `meta.guidance_level` — for framing only.
2. **Identify the checklist version.** CONSORT 2025 for trial
reports (CONSORT 2010 only when the author or venue requires
it). SPIRIT 2025 for trial protocols. PRISMA 2020 (not 2009).
TRIPOD+AI 2024 for AI-based prediction models (not TRIPOD
2015). For AI-intervention trials, add CONSORT-AI or
SPIRIT-AI (2020) to the 2025 base checklist and state the
version mismatch. Name the version explicitly in the output.
Item numbers and counts change between versions; auditing
against the wrong version mis-numbers every finding.
3. **Read the manuscript.** Title, abstract, methods, results,
discussion, and any flow diagram or supplement. Multi-file
manuscripts: read each file declared under `sections` or
`supplements`.
4. **Walk each checklist item systematically.** For each item:
- Search for the prose passage(s) that would satisfy it.
- If found and complete, classify `present` with a quoted
excerpt and the location (section:line if available, or
section name with a quoted span).
- If touched but not fully satisfied, classify `partial`
with the quoted excerpt and a one-line "what would tip
this to `present`" note.
- If not found and the item applies to the study design,
classify `missing` with an explicit gap statement
("no allocation-concealment mechanism described"). Do
- **not** propose phrasing.
+ **not** propose phrasing, unless the author overrides
+ `generation-from-blankness` (then one bracketed
+ `Placeholder:`, never a filled-in fact).
- If the item does not apply to this study, classify
`not-applicable` with a one-sentence justification
("continuous primary outcome — CONSORT 2010 item 17b on
binary outcome presentation does not apply").
- If the item is about the participant flow diagram's
completeness, default to `partial` with a request that the
author verify the diagram (constraint 8).
5. **Cross-check against `known_weaknesses`.** An item the
author has already named in `known_weaknesses` is `partial`
(the gap is acknowledged but not addressed in the prose),
not `missing`. Note the acknowledgement explicitly.
6. **Layer in venue-specific requirements (if any).** If
`project.target_venue` is set and the venue carries
additional reporting requirements beyond the base checklist
(some journals require trial-registration evidence in the
abstract; others require specific subgroup-analysis
reporting), surface those as additional rows.
7. **Tally and emit the structured report.** Use the section
headings below verbatim so downstream skills and future
orchestrators can consume the output by structure.
## Output format
Emit a markdown document with exactly these section headings,
in order:
```markdown
# Reporting-guideline compliance
+ Overrides applied: <guard ids> (only when the run proceeded past a scope guard)
+
## Summary
- Checklist audited: <NAME VERSION> (e.g., CONSORT 2025, SPIRIT
2025, PRISMA 2020, ARRIVE 2.0, TRIPOD+AI 2024; for an
AI-intervention trial, CONSORT 2025 + CONSORT-AI 2020 with the
- version mismatch stated)
+ version mismatch stated; append "(inferred, unconfirmed)" under
+ the `checklist-required` override)
- Item count: N
- Present: N
- Partial: N
- Missing: N
- Not-applicable: N
- Highest-priority gaps: <one-line list of the missing items the
author should address first — items that journals routinely
desk-reject for, or that the upstream `reporting-guideline-fit`
flagged as high-confidence required>
## Checklist audit
(One row per checklist item. The item numbering matches the
named version. Quoted excerpts use the manuscript's own prose.
Locations are section names — or section:line if available.)
| Item | Status | Anchor or gap | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| <n>. <item title> | present | <section:line> — "<quoted excerpt>" | <one-line context if useful> |
| <n>. <item title> | partial | <section:line> — "<quoted excerpt>" | What would tip to present: <one-line note> |
- | <n>. <item title> | missing | (no anchor) | Gap: <explicit, no proposed prose> |
+ | <n>. <item title> | missing | (no anchor) | Gap: <explicit, no proposed prose by default> |
| <n>. <item title> | not-applicable | (n/a) | Justification: <one sentence> |
## Highest-priority gaps
(Subset of the `missing` rows. Ordered by what reviewers most
commonly flag and what venues most commonly desk-reject for. Do
- **not** propose prose; name the gap.)
+ **not** propose prose; name the gap. Under the
+ `generation-from-blankness` override, the bracketed placeholder
+ stays in the table row.)
1. **Item <n>. <title>.** <One-paragraph statement of what is
missing and why this item is high-priority. No proposed
replacement text.>
2. …
## Acknowledged-but-unaddressed items
(Items the author has named in `known_weaknesses` but that the
manuscript prose does not yet address. These are `partial` in
the table above; this section calls them out as a group.)
- <Item n. title> — acknowledged in `known_weaknesses` as
"<quoted weakness>". The manuscript prose does not yet
address this in <section>.
## Venue-specific requirements
(Only when `project.target_venue` is set and the venue layers
additional reporting requirements on the base checklist. Empty
otherwise.)
- <Venue>: <additional requirement>. Status: present / partial
/ missing.
## What this audit did NOT check
(Honest list. Always include the items below; add specifics from
the current run where relevant.)
- Whether the chosen checklist was the right one. That is the
upstream `reporting-guideline-fit` skill's job; this audit
- trusts the inference.
+ trusts the inference. (Under the `checklist-required` override,
+ say that the checklist was inferred here and is unconfirmed.)
- Whether the underlying study design was the right choice. The
audit assesses what is reported, not whether the design was
appropriate.
- Whether quantitative claims are internally consistent (Table 1
N vs. methods N; abstract percentages vs. figure percentages).
That is the planned `statistics-consistency` skill's job.
- Whether figures match the prose. That is the
`figure-text-alignment` skill's job.
- The bibliography itself. Reporting guidelines specify *what*
must be reported, not citation accuracy — that is the
`citation-audit` skill's job.
- Editor-side enforcement. Author-side decision support.
```
## What "good output" looks like
- **Anchored.** Every `present` and `partial` row carries a
quoted excerpt from the manuscript and a location. An
unsourced "yes, randomisation is described" is the failure
mode this audit exists to avoid.
- **Honest about `partial`.** Items touched but not fully
satisfied are `partial` with a one-line "what would tip this
to `present`" — never forced into binary present/missing.
- **`not-applicable` carries justification.** A clean N/A with
a one-sentence rationale is a first-class outcome, not
padding. The author should see why the audit skipped each
N/A item.
- **Missing rows name the gap; they do not propose prose.**
"No allocation-concealment mechanism described" is the right
level. "Consider adding: 'Allocation was concealed using
- sequentially numbered opaque envelopes…'" is **not**.
+ sequentially numbered opaque envelopes…'" is **not**, at any
+ setting: it states a fact the manuscript does not contain. Under
+ the `generation-from-blankness` override, "Placeholder:
+ Allocation was concealed using [mechanism]." is the most a row
+ carries.
- **Version-anchored.** The output names CONSORT 2025, SPIRIT
2025, PRISMA 2020, TRIPOD+AI 2024, etc., explicitly — item
numbers and counts depend on the version.
- **Highest-priority gaps section is short and substantive.**
Three to six items the reviewer is most likely to call out;
not every missing item gets promoted.
- **Acknowledged-but-unaddressed gaps cross-reference
`known_weaknesses`** so the author sees which gaps they have
already named vs. which are surprises.
## What you must not do
- - Invent prose to fill missing items. Surface the gap; the
- author owns the fix.
+ - Draft prose to fill missing items, unless the author overrides
+ `generation-from-blankness`. Surface the gap; the author owns
+ the fix.
+ - Invent facts about the study, at any setting
+ (`no-invented-manuscript-facts`; fixed).
- Modify the manuscript or any state file.
- - Re-infer the applicable checklist. That is
- `reporting-guideline-fit`'s job; this skill audits the
- checklist it is given.
+ - Re-infer the applicable checklist, unless the author overrides
+ `checklist-required`. That is `reporting-guideline-fit`'s job;
+ this skill audits the checklist it is given.
+ - Mark an unverified flow-diagram item `present`
+ (`no-false-verification-claims`; fixed).
+ - Run on an outline-phase manuscript, unless the author overrides
+ `outline-phase`.
- Force a confident `present` or `missing` when the honest
answer is `partial`.
- Mark items `not-applicable` without a one-sentence
justification. A bare N/A erodes trust.
- Skip checklist items the audit is unsure about. Walk every
item; the value is in coverage.
- Audit against a superseded checklist version when a current
version applies (CONSORT 2010 when 2025 is current, unless the
author or venue requires 2010; PRISMA 2009 when 2020 is
current; TRIPOD 2015 when TRIPOD+AI 2024 is current for
AI-based models).
- Cite a checklist item number without its version.
- Run other skills as side effects.
## Grounding
This skill is grounded in scriptorium's knowledge layer:
- [[reporting-guidelines]] — the primary anchor. EQUATOR
Network registry; design-specific checklists (CONSORT 2025,
which replaced CONSORT 2010 in April 2025 and renumbered the
items; SPIRIT 2025 for protocols; STROBE, PRISMA 2020, ARRIVE
2.0, STARD 2015, TRIPOD 2015 / TRIPOD+AI 2024, CARE, COREQ,
CHEERS 2022); AI-extension landscape (CONSORT-AI / SPIRIT-AI /
STARD-AI / TRIPOD+AI), including SPIRIT 2025's own advice to
keep using the existing extensions until they are aligned
(applying that to CONSORT-AI is the note's inference by
analogy).
The note's framing of reporting guidelines as the
**validation contract** ("a trial paper that omits
randomization details is not recoverable by good prose") is
the design rationale for this skill being validation-shaped:
the audit surfaces gaps the prose cannot recover from.
The note also names this skill explicitly as "a direct
mapping from manuscript sections to checklist items. Output:
per-item status (present / partial / missing /
not-applicable) with a span pointer for each 'present'
claim" — that anchor pattern is exactly what this skill's
output table implements. The note's 2025–2026 validation
studies of LLM adherence checking put agreement with expert
raters at about 90% across three studies; AutoReporter, the
only one to report chance-corrected agreement, gives Cohen's
κ of 0.70–0.77. That error rate is why the quoted anchor is
mandatory. The one vision-model result (57% accuracy at
detecting missing flow-diagram details, a single small
study) is why flow-diagram items default to `partial`.
- [[declared-work-scope]] — the convention. The audit
- operates on declared manuscript prose; refuses cleanly on
- outline or when the applicable checklist is unknown; never
- invents prose to fill missing items.
+ operates on declared manuscript prose. By default it declines
+ on outline or when the applicable checklist is unknown, and
+ does not draft prose to fill missing items (the
+ `outline-phase`, `checklist-required` and
+ `generation-from-blankness` scope guards).
+ - [[author-authority]] — the guard convention. The scope guards
+ above are defaults the author can override, per run or under
+ `meta.overrides`; the accuracy guards are fixed. It also
+ defines the "Overrides applied" line.
- [[internal-consistency]] — the bookkeeping framing. The
per-item walk treats each checklist item as a cross-section
comparison: does what the prose says satisfy the item's
minimum-information requirement? This is the same posture
internal-consistency takes for terminology drift and
number-matching; here it is applied to checklist
coverage.
- [[guidance-level]] — the framing-level convention.
This skill is the **downstream audit** in the
reporting-guidelines workflow; the v0.2
`reporting-guideline-fit` skill is the upstream inference.
The two are deliberately separate.
## See also
- `/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit` (v0.2) — the upstream
skill that infers which EQUATOR checklist applies. Run it
first when the applicable checklist isn't known.
- `/scriptorium:reviewer-simulation` — pairs naturally before
submission. Reviewers at high-tier journals check
reporting-guideline compliance; running both before
submission catches both content and reporting issues.
- `/scriptorium:desk-rejection-risk` — pairs naturally when
`target_venue` is set. Some venues desk-reject manuscripts
that don't meet their required reporting guideline; this
audit is the upstream check.
- `/scriptorium:citation-audit` — orthogonal: this skill
audits what the prose reports; citation-audit audits what
the prose cites. Both run cleanly side by side.
- `/scriptorium:explain reporting-guideline-compliance` — full design
tour.