paper-poster-html

> Override for Codex users who want Gemini, not a second Codex/Codex-MCP reviewer, to act as the reviewer. Install this package after skills/skills-codex/*.

Paper Poster (HTML): measurement-gated poster generation

> Gemini overlay assurance: review_independence: cross-family and acceptance_status: accepted.

One HTML file styled for an exact print canvas (@page { size: W H }), rendered to PDF

via Playwright print emulation. Iterate by measuring, not eyeballing — the screen

preview lies; only print emulation at the correct viewport tells the truth. Core gate

machinery is adapted from posterly (MIT, ©

2026 Ruishuo Chen — see NOTICE.md and LICENSES/posterly-MIT.txt in the mainline

skill directory); ARIS adds style discipline gates, figure-provenance gates, the

cross-model review loop, and the anti-patch-loop fix vocabulary.

This overlay is identical to skills/skills-codex/paper-poster-html/ except that the

two cross-model review calls go to Gemini through the local gemini-review MCP

bridge instead of a spawned GPT reviewer agent. Follow the base mirror for everything

not restated here (phases, gates, fix vocabulary, figure provenance, output contract).

Reviewer constants (overlay)

• REVIEWER_MODEL = gemini-review — Gemini invoked through the local

gemini-review MCP bridge.

• Fresh review job per call — start each review with

mcp__gemini-review__review_start; never reuse a prior review job across review

boundaries. Save the returned jobId, poll mcp__gemini-review__review_status with

a bounded waitSeconds until done=true, and treat the completed payload's

response as the reviewer output.

• The Gemini bridge cannot read your local files — paste the relevant content into the

prompt, and pass rendered posters via imagePaths.

• If the gemini-review bridge is unavailable, stop and tell the user what to

configure. Do not silently degrade the cross-model reviews into self-review.

Phase 1 step 2 — Cross-model content audit (Gemini)

mcp__gemini-review__review_start:
  prompt: |
    Audit a conference-poster content plan against its source paper.

    ## Poster content plan
    [PASTE poster_html/POSTER_CONTENT_PLAN.md]

    ## Paper source (relevant sections)
    [PASTE the paper sections backing the plan's claims — abstract, headline
    results tables, method equations, theorem statements]

    For EVERY claim, number, equation, and attribution in the plan, output one row:
    | claim on poster | paper location | paper says (verbatim) | match? |
    with match ∈ {OK, NUMERIC-MISMATCH, OVERCLAIM, MISSING-PRECONDITION,
    NOT-IN-PAPER, SCOPE-NARROWED}. End with a count per category.

Poll review_status until done=true; save the response to

poster_html/CLAIM_EVIDENCE.md. Fix every non-OK row or record it as a

user-acknowledged tradeoff.

Phase 6 — Final review (Gemini, multimodal)

All hard gates PASS + polish warnings zero-or-waived + executor visual score ≥ 9

first. Then:

mcp__gemini-review__review_start:
  imagePaths: ["poster_html/poster_preview.png"]
  prompt: |
    Final print-readiness audit of a conference poster (image attached).

    ## Final poster text content
    [PASTE the text content extracted from poster_html/poster.html]

    ## Gate report summary
    [PASTE the overall/hard_failures/warnings fields of poster_html/GATE_REPORT.json]

    ## Claim→evidence audit
    [PASTE poster_html/CLAIM_EVIDENCE.md]

    Check: (1) fidelity & overclaims RE-CHECKED on the final text (polish introduces
    new claims), (2) residue (\ref{, TODO, raw < in math, missing images, remote
    URLs), (3) visual rhetoric (headline numbers prominent, banner readable from
    2 m, two-hue discipline, real paper figures central and inside their cards),
    (4) gate-log coherence.
    Verdict: PRINT-READY or NEEDS-FIX with a numbered, severity-ordered issue list.

Poll mcp__gemini-review__review_status with a bounded waitSeconds until done=true;

treat the completed payload's response as the reviewer verdict.

The reviewer recommends; it does not edit. Any fix → back through Phase 4/5 gates —

never straight to re-review.

Review tracing

Save both review jobs' raw responses per ../../shared-references/review-tracing.md to

.aris/traces/paper-poster-html/<date>_run<NN>/.