Return a release review with evidence for checked items and the remaining author decisions. Adapted from Carlini's Research Paper Release Checklist; see coverage for the bundled script's limits.
Scope: a paper or preprint headed to a venue or arXiv. A customer, technical, or evaluation report typeset in LaTeX goes to evaluation-audit release mode, which decides whether its results can be shown; the source scanner below can still lint that report's TeX when asked.
Source checks
From this skill directory:
python3 scripts/check_tex.py path/to/main.tex --log path/to/main.log
python3 scripts/check_tex.py path/to/main.tex --blind --author "Full Name"
Python 3.10 or newer; no packages. The script follows \input and \include, strips comments, and prints severity, location, and message plus a summary. Exit 1 means an error finding; 2 means invalid usage. It catches source markers, potential text mistakes, selected anonymity clues, and supplied build-log issues. Warnings need interpretation; it cannot establish venue compliance or scientific correctness.
Report the command and actionable findings. Rerun affected checks after authorized edits. If Python is unavailable, inspect by the alternatives in the coverage reference and state the narrower coverage.
Artifact and author checks
Use the release checklist for the actual release type. Inspect available artifacts directly with suitable tools: PDF rendering, page count, fonts, captions, links, title/form comparison, and applicable venue rules. Check the current official requirements when needed; a remembered page limit or anonymous-author format is insufficient.
Record checked only with the actual observation, confirmed by author only for an author answer, open for an unresolved item, and n/a with the applicable reason. Do not infer rendered layout from source or claim another-machine verification from one local render. Ask only for items requiring unavailable material or human attestation, such as agreement to authorship or the final submission declaration; bundle related missing answers rather than walking the user through checks already completed.
Keep new recurring mistakes in a project checklist when that maintenance is authorized. Do not silently edit an installed shared package from a paper's release review.
Output and authority
Lead with release-blocking findings, then the compact checked/open record needed by the author. Distinguish an actual defect from unavailable evidence. A review does not authorize rewriting, uploading, submitting, or certifying on the author's behalf. If fixes or submission were already requested, preserve that authority and complete only the requested actions; structural argument work can use credo-paper-plan.