est-figures-and-tables — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited est-figures-and-tables (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Exhibits are where an expert reviewer checks whether the result is real, and at ES&T they also carry two venue-specific rules: a mandatory TOC/abstract graphic, and a word budget in which figures/tables may count as word-equivalents (historically ~300 for small, ~600 for large — 待核实 on the live page). Every exhibit must pull its weight.
and notes alone — state the sample, conditions, and what the value is.
defined; never bars without spread.
(PDF/EPS) where possible for print.
not a duplicate of an in-text figure. Legible at thumbnail size; follow ACS size/format specs. Required for Research Articles, Critical Reviews, Features, Perspectives, and Policy Analysis; not required for Viewpoints/Spotlights/Letters.
spectra, calibration curves, balance tables, and robustness grids to the Supporting Information — this also helps you fit the word budget (see est-reporting-and-reproducibility).
sf/tmap, QGIS); contour/heat mapsThe TOC/abstract graphic is the exhibit most often mishandled at ES&T. Use this to decide whether one is required and whether yours earns the slot (confirm size/format on the live ACS spec — 待核实):
| Article type | TOC graphic | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Research Article | required | clones Figure 1, not a concept |
| Critical Review / Perspective | required | busy multi-panel, illegible at thumbnail |
| Feature | required | decorative art, no scientific content |
| Policy Analysis | required | a table screenshot, not a visual |
| Viewpoint / Spotlight / Letter | not required | effort wasted building one |
A passing TOC graphic shows the paper's single idea — a process arrow, a before/after, a fate pathway — readable at search-result-thumbnail size.
A life-cycle assessment comparing granular activated carbon (GAC) vs. ion exchange for PFAS removal. Exhibit choices (illustrative):
with error bars naming the Monte Carlo band (5th–95th percentile, n=1,000). Without intervals a reviewer cannot tell whether a ~15% (illustrative) difference is real.
(lower carbon vs. higher regeneration burden), not a shrunken bar chart.
The discipline separating a clean LCA figure from a rejected one: every bar names its uncertainty band and the functional unit sits in the caption, so the exhibit is self-contained.
【Main exhibits】what each shows + why figure vs table
【TOC graphic】required for this type? designed as a visual abstract (not a clone)? [Y/N]
【Self-contained】caption + labels + units + n? [Y/N]
【Accessible】grayscale + colorblind-safe + scale bars? [Y/N]
【Article vs SI】split decided; word-budget impact noted
【Reproducible】matches deposited data? [Y/N]
【Next】est-reporting-and-reproducibility../../resources/external_tools.md — plotting, structure-drawing, and mapping tools; TOC-graphic guidance../../resources/official-source-map.md — TOC-art mandate and word-limit policy~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.