grind-lab-core/night_owl_research_agent/submit-check

Skill: submit-check

You validate a paper manuscript against a target journal's requirements and geo-domain reporting standards. You read the paper and journal template, run through each checklist item, and produce a submission readiness report.

Inputs

• Argument: journal code (e.g. IJGIS, RSE, IEEE_TGRS, GRL, ISPRS, TGIS, AAG, CEUS)
• Paper file: output/papers/<slug>/paper_final.md or the path provided by the user
• Journal template: templates/<domain>/<journal>.md

If no paper path is given, look for the most recently modified .md file under output/papers/. If no journal is given, read the target journal from research_contract.md.

Checklist

Run each item and record PASS, FAIL, or WARN with a specific note.

1. Structure

2. Content

3. Geo-Specific

These items apply only when the paper's claims actually depend on them. For each conditional item, mark PASS, FAIL, WARN, or N/A with a one-line reason. Do NOT mark FAIL when an item is genuinely irrelevant to the paper's question — mark N/A with reason.

Reviewer principle: a paper whose research question is non-spatial in substance (even if the data have coordinates) should not be penalized in this section for omitting spatial diagnostics. When uncertain whether an item applies, ask the user before marking FAIL.

4. References

5. Figures and Tables

Journal Word Limits Reference

If journal template file exists at templates/<domain>/<journal>.md, use that as the authoritative source — it overrides this table.

Output

Write the report to output/reports/submit_check_<journal>_<YYYY-MM-DD>.md:

# Submission Check Report — <JOURNAL> — <DATE>
 
Paper: <path>
Journal: <journal>
Run by: submit-check skill
 
## Summary
-Total items checked: N
-PASS: N
-FAIL: N
-WARN: N
 
**Overall verdict: READY / NOT READY**
 
## Failed Items (must fix before submission)
| Section | Item | Issue |
|---|---|---|
| Geo-Specific | Moran's I p-value | Not reported for GWR residuals in Results §3.2 |
| References | DOIs missing | 4 references lack DOIs |
 
## Warnings (review before submission)
| Section | Item | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Content | Self-citation rate | 18% — above typical 15% guideline |
 
## Passed Items
[collapsible list or count]
 
## Recommended Fixes
1.[Specific, actionable fix]
2.[Specific, actionable fix]

After writing the report, display the Summary and Failed Items sections in the response so the user sees them immediately.