---

name: resubmit-pipeline description: "Workflow 5: orchestrate a text-only resubmit of a polished paper to a different venue under hard constraints (no new experiments, no bib edits, no framework changes, never overwrite prior submissions). Use when user says "resubmit pipeline", "重投流程", "port paper to <new venue>", "resubmit to <venue>", "tighten paper for resubmission", or has a rejected/withdrawn paper to move to a different top venue under tight time budget." argument-hint: "[paper-base-dir] [— target-venue: <name>] [— review-corpus: <path>]" allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply

Resubmit Pipeline: Text-Only Microedit Mode

Compose a polished paper into a new venue under text-only constraints: $ARGUMENTS

Why This Exists

Most ARIS writing workflows assume the input is either a narrative report (Workflow 3) or an in-progress paper that may still need experiments / bib changes / structural edits. Resubmit is a fundamentally different scope:

• The paper is already polished — proofs are done, experiments are done, bibliography is curated.
• The user wants to absorb prior reviewer concerns from a previous venue and re-submit, without introducing new experiments, new citations, or framework changes (LLM hallucination paranoia + tight resubmit timing + closed compute budget).
• The base submission directory is read-only — the new submission must compose into a sibling directory, never mutate prior state.
• Page limit may shrink between source and target venue (e.g., workshop camera-ready → 9-page main).

Existing skills cover adjacent territory but none of this exact composition: /rebuttal builds the OpenReview-style response document, not in-paper microedits; /auto-paper-improvement-loop is the per-round engine but presupposes someone has already chosen the base manuscript, migrated venue format, set the edit whitelist, queued the reviewer feedback, and decided what NOT to change. /resubmit-pipeline fills that orchestration gap.

When to Use

• A theory or system paper was rejected at venue A and you want to resubmit to venue B with tight time budget (≤ 1-2 weeks).
• You have 3 inputs ready: the polished paper directory at venue A's format, the target venue B's format/template/style files, and the prior reviewer reports.
• You explicitly do not want to re-derive theorems, run new experiments, or change the bibliography.

When NOT to Use

• The paper still needs experiments — use /experiment-bridge → /auto-review-loop first.
• The paper still needs structural rewrites or new sections — use /paper-writing (Workflow 3).
• You want to write the rebuttal response itself — use /rebuttal (Workflow 4).
• The reviewer feedback demands new theorems or new framework — escalate to user before starting; this skill emits BLOCKED with reason_code: out_of_scope_microedit if it detects this case.

Constants

• REVIEWER_MODEL = inherits from /auto-paper-improvement-loop's default (gpt-6-astra via Codex MCP) unless the user passes — reviewer-model: gpt-5.4 (legacy) or another OpenAI model. Codex reasoning effort is fixed at xhigh for all reviewer calls per the existing skill convention.
• ROUNDS = 2 (default; matches /auto-paper-improvement-loop's diminishing-returns line). A 3rd round only fires if Phase 2 reports non-convergence AND the user explicitly approves at the round-2 checkpoint.
• EFFORT = max (default for resubmit; resubmit is high-stakes). The user can override with — effort: balanced if time is extremely tight.
• EDIT_WHITELIST_PATH = <paper-base-dir>/../<NewVenue>/.aris/edit_whitelist.yaml (auto-generated in Phase 0; user can override with a custom path).
• NEVER_OVERWRITE = true (always; this is a hard contract — prior submission directories are immutable).
• ASSURANCE_LEVEL = submission (default; resubmit always targets a real submission).

Inputs

Three mandatory inputs:

1. paper-base-dir — the polished paper at venue A's format. Must contain main.tex (or equivalent entry), sec/ or sections/, references.bib (or equivalent), and a compiled main.pdf (used for visual review).
2. — target-venue: <name> — one of: iclr, icml, neurips, aaai, ijcai, colm, tmlr, uai, or other. The skill expects venue style files at <paper-base-dir>/templates/<venue>.{sty,tex,bst} or in a recognized template directory. If other, the user passes — target-style-dir: <path>.
3. — review-corpus: <path> — directory containing prior venue's reviewer reports as .txt or .md files (one per reviewer, ideally). If --review-corpus is omitted, the skill emits BLOCKED with reason_code: missing_review_corpus because the whole point of resubmit is absorbing those concerns.

Optional:

• — reviewer-model: gpt-5.4 — override the default reviewer (gpt-6-astra); use this for legacy reproducibility or to consume the older quota tier.
• — rounds: <int> — override default 2.
• — assurance: draft — relax MANDATORY gates (default submission).
• — effort: balanced — relax max if time is critical.
• — skip-anonymity-scan — skip Phase 0.5 anonymity check (only valid for non-double-blind venues like TMLR; else WARN).
• — overleaf-target: <project-id> — the Overleaf project ID for Phase 4 push (per /overleaf-sync setup).

Pipeline

Phase 0: Physical Isolation Setup (zero edits to existing files)

Resubmit's hardest invariant: never overwrite any prior submission directory. The new venue's submission lives as a sibling of all prior venues.

# Resolve target-venue → new sibling dir name (capitalized)
NEW_VENUE_DIR="$(dirname "$PAPER_BASE_DIR")/$(echo "$TARGET_VENUE" | sed 's/.*/\u&/')"

# Atomic dir create — `mkdir` (not `mkdir -p`) fails fast if the dir exists,
# avoiding the TOCTOU race window of `[ -e ] && exit; mkdir -p`. The mkdir
# itself must succeed exactly once; if a concurrent run gets there first,
# this errors out per resubmit-pipeline's never-overwrite invariant.
mkdir "$NEW_VENUE_DIR" 2>/dev/null || {
    echo "ERROR: $NEW_VENUE_DIR already exists; resubmit-pipeline never overwrites prior submissions. Pick a different target-venue or rename the existing dir." >&2
    exit 1
}
mkdir -p "$NEW_VENUE_DIR/.aris"

Composition rules (all cp, never \input{../...}, never symlink):

1. main.tex — write fresh for the target venue's .sty. Use templates/<venue>.tex as the starting skeleton; only the \title{}, \author{}, abstract include, and section input lines are copied from the base venue's main.tex. The new main.tex lives entirely inside $NEW_VENUE_DIR/.
2. sec/ (or sections/) — physical cp -r $PAPER_BASE_DIR/sec/ $NEW_VENUE_DIR/sec/. Do not symlink, do not \input{../sec/...} from the new main. Symlinks break Overleaf zip export; cross-directory \input would mutate the shared pool and pollute prior submissions.
3. math_commands.tex (and any other macro file the sections depend on) — physical cp into $NEW_VENUE_DIR/.
4. Figure/ (or figures/) — copy the directory in (cp -r). Path trap: existing sections likely write \includegraphics{Figure/foo.pdf}. If you set \graphicspath{{../Figure/}} from a child directory, it resolves ../Figure/Figure/foo.pdf — wrong. Either copy Figure/ in directly (preferred), or use \graphicspath{{../}}.
5. Bibliography — write \bibliographystyle{<venue-bst>} + \bibliography{../references} directly in the new main.tex. Never \input an existing ref.tex or references.tex that already contains its own \bibliography{} command (path resolution silently breaks).
6. .aris/ — create $NEW_VENUE_DIR/.aris/ and write assurance.txt containing submission (matches the verifier's expected location).

Output of Phase 0: a new sibling dir with all source files, no edits to text content yet, ready for compile.

Phase 0.5: Health Check + Anonymity Scan (still zero text edits)

Before any audit or edit, the paper must compile cleanly on the new venue's style and pass anonymity scan if the target venue is double-blind.

Compile + page count:

cd "$NEW_VENUE_DIR"
latexmk -C
latexmk -pdf -interaction=nonstopmode -halt-on-error main.tex 2>&1 | tee compile.log

If compile fails: emit RESUBMIT_REPORT.json with verdict: BLOCKED, reason_code: phase_0_5_compile_failed, surface the error to the user, and stop. Common causes: missing macro from math_commands.tex, venue style undefined command, \graphicspath issue.

Page count vs venue limit (measure first; do not assume):

PAGES=$(pdfinfo main.pdf | awk '/^Pages:/ {print $2}')
LIMIT=$(grep -oE "page_limit: [0-9]+" "$NEW_VENUE_DIR/templates/$TARGET_VENUE.tex" | awk '{print $2}')
echo "Pages: $PAGES, Limit: $LIMIT, Delta: $((PAGES - LIMIT))"

If PAGES > LIMIT, queue Phase 2 to honor a page-shrink heuristic (see "Page-Shrink Heuristic" below).

Anonymity scan (skip only if — skip-anonymity-scan is passed AND target venue is non-double-blind):

The scan covers 5 layers (the proposal's 1-layer scan was incomplete):

1. Surface identifiers: author surnames, affiliations, institution names, lab codenames, prior funding tag IDs (grep -E "$(echo $AUTHOR_SURNAMES | tr ' ' '|')|$(echo $AFFILIATIONS | tr ' ' '|')").
2. Self-citation phrasing: any sentence using "we showed in [...]" or "in our prior work [...]" that names the paper's own authors. Must rewrite to "X et al. [year] shows..." third-person form. Grep regex: \b(we|our|my|I)\s+(showed|proved|demonstrated|prior work|earlier paper|previous paper)\b.
3. Acknowledgments + funding: scan acknowledgments.tex (or \acknowledgments{} block) for institution-specific thanks, grant IDs, named collaborators. Comment out for double-blind submission.
4. Cross-rebuttal references: scan footnotes and body for "this paper builds on rebuttal at venue X" or "addressing reviewer N's concern from venue X" — these must be removed entirely (they violate anonymity AND signal prior rejection).
5. Internal codenames / project links: grep for repo URLs (github.com/<user>/<project>), Slack channel names, internal wiki links, and dataset codenames that may identify the lab.

If any of the 5 layers triggers a hit, emit RESUBMIT_REPORT.json with verdict: BLOCKED, reason_code: anonymity_scan_failed and present a per-hit list to the user. They must approve a fix or accept the risk before Phase 1 runs. Layers 4-5 are equally blocking as layers 1-3 — cross-rebuttal references and internal codenames signal both prior-venue identity AND lab identity, both of which violate double-blind in different ways.

Residual coloring / margin-note scan:

Search for \revise{...}, \fix{...}, \new{...}, \todo{...}, \todonotes{...}, \textcolor{red}{...} leftovers from camera-ready cycles. List them; user decides whether to keep (some venues accept revision-marker boxes) or strip.

Output of Phase 0.5: BASELINE.md with initial page count, anonymity-scan summary, residual-color list, overfull-hbox count.

Phase 1: Audit (zero edits)

Three audits in parallel, all detect-only. The new dir's source files are read; nothing is written except audit artifacts.

| Skill | Purpose | Artifact | |---|---|---| | /proof-checker $NEW_VENUE_DIR/main.tex --restatement-check | Gap-find on theorems prior reviewers attacked; cross-location consistency between main statement and restatements | PROOF_AUDIT.json + .md | | /paper-claim-audit $NEW_VENUE_DIR/ | Numerical fidelity (every number in body matches what proofs / result files establish) | PAPER_CLAIM_AUDIT.json + .md | | /citation-audit $NEW_VENUE_DIR/ — soft-only | Wrong-context citations + misattributions, mapped to "soften citing sentence" actions (NOT bib edits) | CITATION_AUDIT.json + .md |

**C