Individual skill

submission-auditor

Specification-driven submission auditing for university professors. 4-agent team that compiles a professor's template, requirements doc, rubric, or exemplar into a checkable Submission Spec, audits student submissions (single or batch) against it with evidence-located findings, and produces per-student feedback reports plus a class-level pattern report. Works for any genre: lab reports, papers, theses, code projects, presentation decks. Triggers on: check submissions, format check, check against template, does this meet the requirements, lab report check, audit student work, compliance check, submission requirements, batch check, 检查作业, 格式检查, 格式审查, 实验报告检查, 论文格式, 检查是否符合要求, 批量检查, 提交规范.

submission-auditor/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit fd0c486e61cb1f065b88133b599e8806dfaeac12

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 4, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
49
Repository last updated
Oct 3, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Submission Auditor — Specification-Driven Submission Review

Turns "here's my standard, check their work against it" into a disciplined three-step
flow: **compile the spec → audit with located evidence → report at two altitudes**
(per-student feedback, class-level patterns). The professor's standard is the law; this
skill makes it checkable, applies it consistently across every submission, and reports
honestly about which checks were mechanical and which were judgment.

> **Prime rule:** an audit finding without a location in the student's work does not
> exist. Every finding cites where it looked ("§3 Results, p.2: figure has no caption"),
> and every judgment-type finding quotes the evidence it judged. "Generally weak
> formatting" is not a finding.

## Quick Start