Anti-Autoresearch skill

---
name: consistency-audit
description: "Flagship intra-paper self-consistency forensics: does the paper contradict ITSELF across abstract/intro/tables/body/appendix, and does the method DESCRIBED match the method EVALUATED? Needs no external ground truth — works PDF-only (L0). Runs a deterministic arithmetic pass + a fresh cross-model semantic pass, every finding span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json), reviewer≠adjudicator. Emits consistency-audit.findings.json; NEVER computes the verdict. Triggers: \"consistency audit\", \"check the paper against itself\", \"self-consistency\", \"内部自洽\"."
argument-hint: [paper-dir | claims.json]
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, mcp__codex__codex
---

# Consistency Audit — the paper vs itself

Audit intra-paper self-consistency for: **$ARGUMENTS** (requires `claims.json`
from `/evidence-ledger`). Emit span-anchored `consistency-audit.findings.json`;
the deterministic adjudicator — not this skill — computes the verdict.

> 🔒 **Do not wrap this skill in `/loop`, `/schedule`, or `CronCreate`.** It is
> verdict-bearing input — it proposes the findings the deterministic adjudicator
> turns into the report. Re-firing it on a wall-clock timer adds no signal: its
> output changes only when the **paper / ledger** changes, not with the clock.
> Schedule the *external wait that precedes it* — ledger built → audit **once**.
> (Mirrors ARIS's external-cadence doctrine.)

> The flagship instrument. Internal contradiction is the single most defensible
> thing you can check on an unknown submission: it needs no external GT, runs at L0
> (PDF-only), and is exactly where machine-generated papers crack — they hallucinate
> *local* coherence. Recall scales with the ledger: a PDF-text (L0) ledger extracts
> only number/scope spans, so the table/caption/method-drift checks gain teeth at L1
> (LaTeX), where tables and captions are actually extracted. Adapted from ARIS
> `paper-claim-audit`, reframed from "paper vs result files" to **"paper vs
> itself."** There is no external ground truth in this skill.

## Why this exists

An autoresearch pipeline (or rushed human) writes the abstract, the tables, the
method section, and the appendix in separate passes and never reconciles them. The
result is a paper that disagrees with **itself**:

- abstract quotes 85.3% accuracy; the best row of its own Table 2 is 84.7%;
- "improves by 16%" when 73.1 → 78.0 is +6.7% relative / +4.9 points;
- "mean over 5 seeds" where the number is the single best seed, and N=3 in the table;
- method section says "no test-time labels"; the experimental-setup paragraph loads
  gold labels for calibration;