ccf-submission-checker

CCF Submission Checker

Family File Contract

Before file work, reuse canonical paths and one task/artifact working directory; default to project-root ccfa-workfiles/<purpose>/<artifact-id>/. Update in place, preserve inputs, and use UTF-8 with Chinese-text checks. Apply artifact-contracts.md for naming, ownership, and task-created cleanup; handoffs inherit these paths.

Collaboration Contract

Before specialist execution, read and apply ccf-humanization first, then ccf-common. At every handoff, reuse their applicable active rules or refresh missing/changed ones. Both preflights are required even without prose; detailed editing, experiment, and maintenance modes run only when relevant.

Integrate necessary specialist contributions under one owner; reuse valid prerequisites and verify affected results. Follow the cooperation routes without duplicate reports.

Core Rule

Treat submission as a build, venue-policy, page-budget, and artifact-readiness gate. Use local venue guides for expected rules, then require official-policy freshness for final decisions. Do not rewrite paper content.

Modes

• venue-format: template, page limit, anonymity, author block, supplementary and camera-ready rules.
• package-check: LaTeX/PDF build, metadata, fonts, page count, file structure, and submission checklist.
• artifact: code/data/model release plan, environment, seeds, hardware, licenses, artifact README, and reproducibility appendix.
• full: venue + package + artifact.

Workflow

1. Identify venue/year/track, submission mode, project directory, TeX/PDF files, supplementary/artifact files, and deadline pressure.
2. Read ccfa.yaml when available. If absent, proceed with supplied files; report only missing information that affects a requested check.
3. For venue questions, read ../ccf-paper-writer/references/venue-guides/index.md and the specific guide as navigation. Apply format, page and anonymity rules only from a verified official source matching the venue/year/track/stage; reuse a current verified result. Legacy guide examples cannot override a supplied verified template. Resolve a real mismatch against the target official requirements before changing the manuscript.
4. For package checks, inspect the actual TeX/PDF/build output, page accounting for the exact venue/year/track, anonymity, fonts, metadata, references, and applicable required forms. For ICLR 2027, apply the matched guide's year-specific template, stage-specific page budget, and AI-use statement/form checks; unconfirmed usage facts remain not verified. Read logs and affected pages; do not infer a successful build from file presence.
5. For artifact checks, build a reproducibility checklist: code, data, models, environment, seeds, hardware, license, access restrictions, and README.
6. Route actual findings or authorized fixes through their owners: paper writer for needed text/page revisions, visual composer for figure/table layout defects, and rebuttal writer for post-review response packaging. A paper within the page budget does not automatically need polishing. For a reproducibility gap, distinguish missing documentation, configuration, code, and scientific evidence: research engineer handles implementation or reproduction work, and experiment designer resolves a comparison or protocol question. A missing checklist item alone does not require a new experiment.

Output Contract

Mode:
Venue and rule freshness:
Files checked:
Pass/fail checklist:
Build/package issues:
Anonymity/page/font/metadata issues:
Length budget status:
Artifact/reproducibility issues:
Required fixes:
Next CCFA owner:

Check Scope

Follow ../ccf-common/references/handoff-modes.md and ../ccf-common/references/task-modes.md. Run checks relevant to the requested mode and actual artifacts. Distinguish pass, fail, not applicable, and not verified; missing tools do not imply passing or failure. Record the official rule URL and the date checked. Reuse the project build configuration and place generated logs/previews in the established or shared task build directory. Update the canonical readiness report in place and distinguish old PDFs from successful current builds. Recheck only affected build surfaces after a fix. Underfilling a page budget alone is not a venue violation. Do not upload or submit files merely because a readiness check was requested.