latex-arxiv-SKILL: An Agent Skill That Gates LaTeX Paper Writing Behind Plan Approval and Citation Checks

The problem: agents write LaTeX faster than anyone can check the references

A coding agent asked to draft a survey will produce paragraphs in seconds and citations at the same rate. The failure mode is not ugly LaTeX. It is a bibliography entry that looks plausible, reads correctly in context, and does not exist. The repository's README states the guardrail directly: every citation is verified against a live source before it enters ref.bib, and any claim without evidence becomes a TODO rather than a fabricated reference. That single rule defines the audience. This is for researchers, graduate students, and engineers who want a first draft of a machine-learning or AI review paper and are willing to spend time on a plan review and an issue list in exchange for a reference section they can trust. It is not for someone who wants a finished manuscript with no human in the loop, and it is not for primary research, since the workflow is built around reviewing existing literature rather than producing new results.

The gate that stops prose: plan approval plus an issues CSV

The README is explicit about the ordering constraint. The agent cannot write a single paragraph into main.tex until two conditions hold: you approve the plan, and the issues CSV exists. Everything before that point is a research snapshot of 10 to 20 papers with no prose, followed by a scaffolded IEEEtran project with a draft plan and candidate titles. The approval gate is a real branch in the flow: revise sends the agent back to the scaffold, approved moves it forward to issue generation. The issues CSV then becomes what the README calls the execution contract and the single source of truth for progress. Each section is a tracked issue with target citations and acceptance criteria, and the agent splits or inserts issues as scope grows instead of doing untracked work. Nothing is marked DONE until its acceptance criteria are met. This is the part worth stealing even if you never run the tool. Most agent writing failures come from unbounded scope, and an explicit CSV of small, checkable units is a cheap fix.

Deterministic scripts around a non-deterministic writer

The repository splits responsibilities. Scaffolding, plan and issue generation, arXiv discovery, CSV validation, and compilation are Python scripts, and the README says this is deliberate so they behave the same on every run. arXiv discovery runs through arxiv_registry.py, which queries the arXiv Atom API and writes BibTeX while keeping a local SQLite cache. The agent handles the parts that resist scripting: reading papers, drafting prose, and checking each citation against a live source. Two skills sit alongside the main harness. latex-rhythm-refiner post-processes prose for sentence and paragraph rhythm while preserving every citation. collaborating-with-claude and collaborating-with-gemini act as bridges for delegating sub-tasks or getting a second opinion from another model. The overall claim is modest and testable: the mechanical steps are reproducible, and the judgement steps are gated. That is a more honest architecture than pretending the whole pipeline is deterministic.

Getting it running: agent runtime, Python, LaTeX, and web access

The requirements section lists four things. An agent runtime, either OpenAI Codex or Anthropic Claude Code, with skills enabled. Python 3.8 or newer for the helper scripts. A working LaTeX environment providing pdflatex and bibtex, or latexmk. And web search and browsing, because citation verification needs a live source. The README notes the project was tested on macOS with GPT-5.2 (Extra High), which is a narrow testing surface for a tool that claims portability across two runtimes. Installation itself follows the Agent Skills standard documented in agent-skills-standard.md, so the skill bundle is copied into the runtime's skills directory rather than installed as a package. The quickstart is two prompts. The first, write a review article for arxiv that is about SOTA generative image models, triggers the literature pass, the section framework, candidate titles, and a plan file named plan/<timestamp>-<slug>.md containing clarification questions. The second prompt delegates the remaining decisions. The README is candid that this second prompt is intentionally vague and that the plan questions were ignored, and the harness still produced a complete compiling project. That is a useful signal about how much the gate actually constrains versus how much it merely documents.

The two example papers and what they do not prove

The examples table lists a v0 generative image models review with 55 verified citations from a single-skill run, and a v0.5 video world simulators review with 81 verified citations from a multi-skill run using the SQLite arXiv registry and BibTeX cache. Both ship with plans, issue CSVs, sources, and compiled PDFs, so the claims are inspectable rather than asserted. What the examples do not establish is anything about quality beyond citation count. There is no reported comparison against a hand-written survey, no measurement of how many citations failed verification and were dropped, and no data on how often the acceptance criteria needed human correction. The count of verified citations tells you the verification step ran. It does not tell you the citations were the right ones. For a review paper, coverage and selection matter more than volume, and the repository has no mechanism described for detecting a missing line of work.

Where it breaks: wrong tool, thin coverage, and a single-platform test

Three limitations are visible in the material. First, the harness produces review papers. If you need experiments, ablations, or a methods contribution, the gated workflow has nothing to gate, and the citation-verification pass will not help. Second, citation verification requires web search and browsing. An air-gapped environment, a paywalled corpus, or a runtime without browsing turns the central safeguard into a manual step, and the README offers no fallback. Third, the tool was tested on macOS with one model configuration. Cross-platform behaviour of pdflatex and bibtex builds is a known source of variation, and the repository does not claim otherwise. There is also a subtler cost. The approval gate and the issues CSV are only as good as the plan you approve. The quickstart shows a run where the plan questions were ignored entirely, which means the gate can degrade into a formality if the operator treats it that way. The harness cannot enforce that you read the plan.

The alternative: general-purpose agent writing versus a gated harness

The obvious alternative is pointing Claude Code or Codex at a LaTeX template and asking for a survey directly, without a skill bundle. That approach is faster to start and imposes no CSV, no plan file, and no approval step. The difference is where verification happens. In the ad-hoc approach, citation checking is whatever the operator remembers to do afterwards, and hallucinated references typically surface at submission time. Here, verification is a step inside the per-issue loop, and the README ties completion to a clean pdflatex and bibtex build with no undefined-citation warnings. A second alternative is a reference manager plus a static site or Overleaf project, where bibliography integrity comes from tooling like BibTeX validation rather than from an agent. That path gives you no drafting help at all. The harness sits between the two: agent-generated prose, script-generated structure, and a verification step that a human would otherwise perform by hand. The trade is real. You accept a slower start and a plan review in exchange for a bibliography that has been checked before the draft exists.

Maintenance, upgrade cost, and the MIT licence

The repository is MIT licensed, which permits commercial and academic use, modification, and redistribution provided the copyright notice and permission notice are retained. That is the whole of the licence implication here; anything beyond it is a question for your institution. Maintenance cost has three components. The skill bundle must track the Agent Skills standard the repository defines in agent-skills-standard.md, and that standard is the project's own, so portability across Codex and Claude Code depends on the maintainers keeping both runtimes working. The Python scripts carry a Python 3.8 floor, and arxiv_registry.py depends on the arXiv Atom API, so a change to that interface breaks discovery independently of anything in this repository. The LaTeX side is the most stable, since IEEEtran and pdflatex change slowly. There are no retrieved releases, so upgrades arrive as commits on main rather than as versioned artifacts, which means pinning to a commit hash is the only reproducible option. The README also notes the harness can be pointed at an existing LaTeX project for a citation-validation pass that audits and repairs ref.bib without re-scaffolding. That narrower use is the lowest-risk way to evaluate the project before adopting the full pipeline.

Editorial conclusion

Adopt it if you already run Codex or Claude Code, have pdflatex and bibtex installed, and want a review paper whose reference list you can audit line by line. Do not adopt it if you need original experimental results, a non-IEEE template, or an offline workflow, since citation verification depends on web search. Before committing, run the scaffold and issue-generation scripts on a throwaway topic and confirm that the generated issues CSV contains acceptance criteria you would actually enforce.

Official sources

1. appautomaton/latex-arxiv-SKILL on GitHub
2. Issues
3. License: MIT
4. Project website
5. README