Appendix Table Writer

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass, no license.

.claude/skills

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 81994516a430 · 19 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• PublisherWILLOSCAR GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source folderWILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/.codex/skills/appendix-table-writerThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceNot declaredAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict81994516a430A new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 14 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Curate reader-facing survey tables for the Appendix (clean layout + high information density), using only in-scope evidence and existing citation keys.

---
name: appendix-table-writer
description: "Curate reader-facing survey tables for the Appendix (clean layout + high information density), using only in-scope evidence and existing citation keys."
---

# Appendix Table Writer (publishable survey tables)

## Triggers & routing

- **Trigger**: appendix tables, publishable tables, survey tables, reader tables, 附录表格, 可发表表格, 综述表格.
- **Use when**: you have C4 artifacts (evidence packs + anchor sheet + citations) and want tables that look like a real survey (not internal logs).


## Why this exists

The pipeline can produce index tables that are useful for planning/debugging, but read like internal artifacts.

This skill writes publishable, reader-facing tables that can live in an Appendix:
- cleaner layout
- higher information density
- survey-style organization (methods/benchmarks/risks), not intermediate state

Index tables remain in `outline/tables_index.md` and should not be copied verbatim into the paper.

## Inputs

- `outline/table_schema.md` (table intent + evidence mapping)
- `outline/tables_index.md` (internal index; optional but recommended)
- `outline/subsection_briefs.jsonl`
- `outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl`
- `outline/anchor_sheet.jsonl`
- `citations/ref.bib`
- Optional: `GOAL.md`

Read as needed:
- `references/table_cell_hygiene.md` when Appendix table cells still copy raw paper self-narration or generic result wrappers

Machine-readable assets:
- `assets/table_cell_hygiene.json`

## Output

- `outline/tables_appendix.md`

## Roles (use explicitly)

### Survey Table Curator (reader lens)

Mission: choose tables a reader actually wants in a survey Appendix.

Do:
- prefer 2-3 tables that answer big questions (methods, evaluation, risks)
- make rows comparable (same row unit across the table)
- make the table legible without reading the whole paper

Avoid:
- one-row-per-H3 index dumps
- columns named like internal axes ("axes", "blocking_missing", "evidence readiness")

### Production Editor (layout)

Mission: make the table look publishable in LaTeX.

Do:
- keep columns <= 4
- keep cells short (phrases, not sentences)
- use `<br>` sparingly (0-1 per cell; never a list dump)

Avoid:
- 6-8 columns with tiny unreadable text
- cells that look like notes (semicolon chains + slash lists + long parentheticals)
- slash-separated axis markers (A/B/C) in captions/headers/cells (post-merge voice gate will flag them); use commas or 'and' instead
- internal axis jargon that reads like an intermediate artifact once printed (e.g., calling table columns "tokens"); prefer "protocol details/metadata/assumptions"

### Evidence Steward (verifiability)

Mission: prevent hallucinations.

Do:
- every row must include citations in a dedicated column (e.g., "Key refs")
- only restate what appears in evidence packs / anchor sheet
- when evidence is thin, prefer fewer rows with stronger grounding

Avoid:
- "representative works" with no supporting claim in packs/anchors
- adding benchmark/method details not present upstream

## Table contract (publishable, Appendix-ready)

`outline/tables_appendix.md` must:
- contain >=1 Markdown table for `course_paper`, or >=2 for `survey` / `deep`
- use a caption line before each table, e.g. `**Appendix Table A1. Representative systems by method family and evaluation setting**`
- contain no headings (`#`, `##`, `###`) inside the file (the merger adds an Appendix heading)
- contain no placeholders (`TODO`, `TBD`, `FIXME`, ASCII three-dot ellipsis, unicode ellipsis)
- contain citations in rows using `[@BibKey]` (keys must exist in `citations/ref.bib`)
- avoid pipeline jargon and index-like column names

## Workflow (explicit inputs)

- Start from `GOAL.md` (scope) and `outline/table_schema.md` (what each table must answer).
- Read `queries.md:draft_profile` when present; `course_paper` uses one strong reader table by default, while `survey` / `deep` retain at least two.
- Use `outline/tables_index.md` as a shortlist source, but do not paste it verbatim.
- Fill rows/cells using `outline/subsection_briefs.jsonl`, `outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl`, and `outline/anchor_sheet.jsonl` (no guessing).
- Validate every cited key against `citations/ref.bib`.

## Recommended Appendix tables (default set)

If you are unsure what to build, start with these two:

1) Method/architecture map (representative works)
- Row unit: work/system line (not H3 id)
- Columns (example):
  - Work (short name)
  - Core idea (1 short phrase)
  - Loop + interface assumptions (1 short phrase; reader-facing)
  - Key refs (2-4 cite keys)

2) Evaluation protocol / benchmark map
- Row unit: benchmark / evaluation setting (or a canonical protocol dimension if benchmarks are thin)
- Columns (example):
  - Benchmark / setting
  - Task + metric (phrases, not definitions)
  - Key protocol constraints (budget/cost/latency/steps/tool access/threat model)
  - Key refs (2-4 cite keys)

Optional third (only if it stays clean):
3) Risk / threat-surface map
- Row unit: threat/failure mode category
- Columns: surface; why it matters; mitigation pattern; key refs

## Positive / negative examples (style)

Bad (index table / internal notes):
- Column: "Axes"
- Cell: `planning / memory / tools / eval / safety` (slash dump)
- Rows: every H3 id with 5+ `<br>` lines

Good (survey table):
- Column labels are reader-facing ("Core idea", "Task + metric", "Constraint")
- Cells are short phrases (no narration)
- A reader can scan and compare rows quickly

Also good (avoid intermediate-artifact tells):
- Don't label columns as "token(s)". If you need the idea, rewrite as "protocol details/metadata/assumptions".
- Avoid ASCII arrows like `->` inside cells; prefer natural phrasing (e.g., "interleaves reasoning traces with tool actions").

## When to stop / route upstream

If you cannot fill a row without guessing:
- remove the row (prefer fewer, solid rows), and
- route upstream: strengthen `evidence-draft` / `anchor-sheet` for that area.

## Script (generator + validator)

### Quick Sta

Excerpt, first 6,000 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

1. 2026-10-19
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 81994516a430

Questions about Appendix Table Writer

• github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/tree/main/.c — the audited source at commit 81994516a430 and every finding aboveObserved · 19 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology