Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@README.md` at line 1331, The Skills table row currently shows Codex with "10
(native format)" which is inconsistent with the Codex section above reporting 30
skills; update the table cell in the row string "| **Skills** | 190 | Shared |
10 (native format) | 37 |" to read "30 (native format)" so the Codex skills
count matches the earlier "Codex" section.

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@skills/abstract-methods-results-cs/schema/output.schema.json` around lines 18
- 32, The schema currently allows any problem_type enum regardless of section;
add JSON Schema conditional rules using if/then that check the document's
section (e.g., if: { properties: { section: { const: "introduction" } },
required: ["section"] }) and in each then: restrict the problem_type enum to the
allowed subset for that section (reference the existing "problem_type" enum
values like "vague_objective","missing_context", etc.), repeating one if/then
per section to enforce the documented mappings; ensure the top-level schema
keeps the original "problem_type" definition but to be validated narrow it
inside the respective then blocks so mismatched section/category combinations
are rejected.

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@skills/academic-final-review-cs/SKILL.md` around lines 250 - 256, Update the
"**Binary thinking**" bullet to remove the claim that items are strictly binary
and instead explain the three allowed evaluator states (PASS/FAIL/WARN) and how
they map to presence/quality (e.g., PASS = present and acceptable, WARN =
present but needs improvement, FAIL = missing or blocking). Locate the "**Binary
thinking**" bullet in SKILL.md and replace its text with a concise rule that
prevents evaluator drift by defining the three states and giving one-line
guidance on when to use each.

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@skills/resume-job-alignment/schema/output.schema.json` around lines 19 - 82,
The schema currently allows empty strings/arrays (e.g., "job_title",
"resume_analyzed", "overall_alignment", the properties inside
"alignment_breakdown", and array fields "key_matches", "gaps",
"tailoring_suggestions", "priority_roadmap"), which permits vacuous outputs;
update those required string properties (job_title, resume_analyzed,
overall_alignment, alignment_breakdown.required_qualifications, nice_to_have,
technical_skills, soft_skills, domain_knowledge, and all string props inside gap
items and tailoring_suggestions items) to include "minLength": 1, and add
"minItems": 1 to arrays that must return at least one element (key_matches,
gaps, tailoring_suggestions, priority_roadmap) so the validator rejects
empty/blank results while keeping existing "additionalProperties": false and the
"priority" enum unchanged.

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@skills/sentence-clarity-cs/evals/evals.json` around lines 6 - 7, The
expected_output entry mistakenly asserts "47+ words" for the first sentence
length; update the "expected_output" value in the evals.json block so it no
longer contains the inaccurate numeric count—either replace "47+ words →
shortened" with a non-numeric descriptor like "long sentence → shortened" or
compute and insert the correct word count, and ensure the string still
references the other checks (weak_verb, ambiguous_pronoun) so the keys "prompt"
and "expected_output" remain consistent.

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At skills/academic-final-review-cs/SKILL.md, line 135:

<comment>Conflicting output instructions can cause non-enum LaTeX checklist items to be emitted, breaking strict schema validation.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
+
+## LaTeX-Specific Checks (If Applicable)
+
+If the paper is written in LaTeX, additionally check:
+
+| Item | What to verify |
</file context>

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At skills/sentence-clarity-cs/evals/evals.json, line 7:

<comment>Expected-output rubric has an incorrect word-count claim ("47+ words") for sentence 1, creating inaccurate eval/scoring guidance.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "Edit these sentences for clarity:\n\n1. The machine learning algorithm that was developed by researchers over a two-year period and was trained on massive datasets containing millions of images was evaluated on the ImageNet benchmark.\n\n2. This approach has been shown to have better performance than previous methods.\n\n3. When the data was processed, it was normalized and then it was used to train the model.",
+      "expected_output": "JSONL with sentence improvements: sentence_length (47+ words → shortened), weak_verb (passive voice converted to active), ambiguous_pronoun (clarify 'it' and 'this')"
+    },
+    {
</file context>

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At skills/paper-structure-cs/SKILL.md, line 60:

<comment>The required-section definition is inconsistent: `missing_section` omits Introduction while other sections treat Introduction as required.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,581 @@
+
+## Issue Categories
+
+- `missing_section` - Required section (Abstract, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion) not found
+- `section_order` - Sections in wrong sequence (e.g., Results before Methods)
+- `heading_skip` - Heading hierarchy violates standard (# → ## → ###, no skips to ###)
</file context>

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At skills/paper-structure-cs/SKILL.md, line 31:

<comment>The skill asks for checks (flow/transitions, section balance) that cannot be represented by the schema’s closed `type` enum, leading to dropped or misclassified outputs.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,581 @@
+- Heading levels follow proper hierarchy (no # → ### skips)
+- Bibliography present and complete
+- Table of Contents (if present) matches actual sections
+- Section transitions and flow are logical
+- Heading naming conventions are consistent
+- Section balance and proportionality (no single 20-page Methods section, etc.)
</file context>

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At skills/paper-structure-cs/SKILL.md, line 71:

<comment>The spec inconsistently treats Discussion as both required and optional, which can cause false positive structural violations for venue-valid papers.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,581 @@
+
+## How to Evaluate
+
+1. **Required sections**: Check for Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion
+2. **Order**: Verify logical flow (Abstract → Intro → Methods → Results → Discussion → Conclusion → Bibliography)
+3. **Headings**: Ensure proper nesting (no jumps; consistent levels for parallel sections)
</file context>

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At skills/resume-job-alignment/schema/output.schema.json, line 21:

<comment>`overall_alignment` is modeled as an unconstrained string even though project docs/evals treat it as a percentage score, allowing invalid non-score text to pass schema validation.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+  "properties": {
+    "job_title": { "type": "string" },
+    "resume_analyzed": { "type": "string" },
+    "overall_alignment": { "type": "string" },
+    "alignment_breakdown": {
+      "type": "object",
</file context>

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At skills/academic-final-review-cs/SKILL.md, line 250:

<comment>This instruction conflicts with the output contract: checklist status is tri-state (`PASS`, `FAIL`, `WARN`), not binary. Reword it to avoid inconsistent status generation.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
+
+## Guidelines
+
+- **Binary thinking**: Each item is binary (present/absent, consistent/inconsistent). Avoid ambiguous status.
+- **Actionability**: Guidance must tell author exactly what to fix (line numbers, specific changes)
+- **Completeness**: Perform the full checklist; don't skip items
</file context>