cxavireh/hotz-skills/pre-submit-challenge

Pre-Submission Review

Use the manuscript version and venue the user supplies. Reuse existing fresh QA results and focus on unresolved risks, rather than requiring every other skill to run first.

Check what could materially change the conclusions or review outcome:

• Code/paper agreement: metric definitions, configurations, reported models,

hyperparameters, and key numbers match their primary evidence.

• Scientific support: missing controls, confounds, selective reporting,

uncertainty, and the strongest plausible alternative explanation.

• Completeness: abstract/conclusions match results, promised appendices exist,

citations and figures support the text, and actual venue requirements hold.

An independent pass is useful for a difficult or consequential claim when it adds new scrutiny. Use the current host's available delegation and model settings; provide the disputed question and relevant artifacts. A separate CLI or fixed older model is not required. Do not instruct a reviewer to fill an issue quota. If no independent pass is available, review directly and describe that limit.

For each material finding, state its location, evidence, impact, and possible resolution. Separate confirmed discrepancies from questions lacking evidence. Report readiness for the checked criteria and the remaining material risks. Do not invent a venue score or guarantee acceptance. Submitting or publishing requires the user's corresponding request.