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 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

metadata: version: "1.0.1"

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 — 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. 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. **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).

1. Never modify the manuscript. Validation skill, not a

transformation. Output is a structured markdown report.

1. **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.

1. **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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. **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.

1. 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.

1. 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. 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.

1. `meta.overrides`. An entry naming the guard with

reporting-guideline-compliance (or "*") under skills means proceed without asking.

1. 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, including whether the step was done ("Allocation [was / was not] 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 (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 — 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, 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 draft 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. 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, 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, 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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, 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).

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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:

# 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; 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 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. 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. (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, at any setting: it states a fact the manuscript does not contain. Under the generation-from-blankness override, "Placeholder: Allocation [was / was not] 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

• 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, 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. 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.