dsh-manuscript-check

Before you submit: is the manuscript complete, does it report what the guideline asks for, and is the submission pack actually packed?

A keyword-based checklist with locators and advice — structure and declarations, starter CONSORT / STROBE / PRISMA item coverage, and a submission-directory scan.

English · 简体中文

---

What it does

• manuscript_check — detects title/abstract/introduction/methods/results/discussion/conclusion, the usual declarations (ethics, consent, funding, conflicts, data availability, contributions, registration), and checks one guideline (manuscript default, consort, strobe, prisma, or auto from the wording). Missing items come with advice; present items carry the character range that matched.
• reporting_check — several guidelines at once, a flat missing-item list ready to paste into a submission checklist.
• submission_pack — scans a submission directory for manuscript, cover letter, numbered figures (detects numbering gaps), tables, supplements and declarations; writes a JSON + Markdown pack report.

What it does not do

• No compliance verdict. Presence is detected by keyword patterns. A statement written in different words can be missed, and a present keyword does not mean the content is adequate. The README and tool descriptions say this; so does every report.
• No PDF/DOCX parsing. Convert to .md/.txt/.tex, or extract PDF text with dsh-doc-anchor.
• No full guideline reproduction. These are starter checklists (14–18 items), not the certified CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA checklists.
• No upload, no conversion, no renaming. The pack scan reports; it never moves a file.
• No journal-specific rules (word limits, reference styles): those belong to a journal profile, not this plugin.

Coverage targets

Guideline	Items	Target
manuscript (structure + declarations)	14	80%
consort (starter)	18	75%
strobe (starter)	16	75%
prisma (starter)	17	75%

Coverage below the target is flagged as "below target"; it is not an error.

Tools

manuscript_check

{ text? | path?, guideline?, persist? } → { ok, analysis, evidenceId?, recordPath? }. analysis = { sections, missingCoreSections, wordCount, results[], notes }.

reporting_check

{ text? | path?, guidelines?: string[] } → { ok, analysis, missing[], evidenceId? }.

submission_pack

{ path?, recursive? } → { ok, pack, exports: {json, markdown} }.

Error codes

INVALID_INPUT · NOT_FOUND · PATH_ESCAPE · NOT_A_FILE · NOT_A_DIRECTORY · TOO_LARGE · UNSUPPORTED_FILE · STORE_ERROR

Compatibility & install

DeepSeek Harness	dsh-v0.2.1-rc.5 (verified 2026-11-08); peer >=0.2.1-0 <0.3.0 || >=0.2.2-0 <0.3.0
Node	^22.19.0 || >=24.9.0 (tested 24.22.1), ESM only
Peers	@perrylink/dsh-research-core ^0.1.0, @deepseek-ai/cordis ^4.0.5-alpha.1, @deepseek-ai/dsh-tools, @deepseek-ai/schemastery ^3.18.5-alpha.1
Runtime dependencies	zero

dsh plugin --profile <name> add @perrylink/dsh-research-core dsh-manuscript-check
dsh --profile <name> --dump-config | grep dsh-manuscript-check

Configuration

Key	Default	Meaning
enabled	true	false mounts nothing
root	.manuscript-check	store, records and exports root
workspaceRoot	process.cwd()	manuscript paths must resolve inside it
maxChars	2000000	hard cap (fails; never truncates)
persist	true	store the checked text as REP evidence + record

Security boundaries

• Read-only on the manuscript; the only writes are under root.
• Path containment with realpath (symlink escapes rejected).
• Character cap fails loudly instead of truncating; a file is byte-capped before it is read, so an oversized file cannot exhaust memory.
• PDF/DOCX are rejected with a clear message rather than parsed unsafely.

Evaluation

20 tests: section splitting (markdown + plain + mixed markdown-title/plain-section), guideline coverage (complete CONSORT-style fixture ≥90%, missing items with advice, locators), auto-detection, guideline catalogue, pack scanning (complete pack, figure gap, missing declarations, not-ready without a manuscript), runtime (REP record validity, auto guideline + file reading, traversal/binary/oversize rejection including a pre-read byte cap, pack exports), tools (schemas, flat missing list, failure branch), package contract.

No benchmark is claimed: this is a rule-based checklist whose ground truth would be "did the human find the same items", which needs a separate adjudicated corpus. Ten synthetic manuscripts are the natural next bench set; until then the unit fixtures are the evidence.

Known limitations (v0.1)

• Keyword detection: different wording → false "missing"; keyword present → not an adequacy check.
• English cues only; Chinese manuscripts need their own cue lists.
• No journal-specific requirements (word count, reference style, ORCID, submission-system metadata).
• Pack scan is depth-limited and filename-based; embedded tables are not detected.

License

Apache-2.0. No third-party runtime code.