gcb-submission — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited gcb-submission (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.
The last check before pressing submit on ScholarOne / Manuscript Central (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcb). GCB desk-rejects heavily, so the preflight is about removing avoidable reasons to bounce: wrong scope framing, missing graphical abstract, over-length text, or a non-compliant data statement. Verify volatile specifics on the official page before relying on them.
mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcb).Opinions, and Perspectives; GCB Reviews should be treated as commissioned unless the live guidance states otherwise.
includes on the live page.
condition of publication ("available on request" not accepted).
options.
gcb-reporting-and-data-policy)gcb-figures-and-tables)gcb-cover-letter)These are the avoidable bounces that surface in the final hour. Catch each one here rather than in a desk-reject letter.
| Failure mode | Where it bites | Pre-upload fix |
|---|---|---|
| Graphical abstract missing/non-mechanistic | Required element check | Supply a driver → response figure |
| Abstract over cap | Metadata field | Trim to the current limit |
| Data statement says "on request" | Compliance screen | Name repository + DOI + access route |
| Wrong article type for the content | Editorial triage | Match type to contribution and its caps |
| Missing ORCID / conflicts / funding | ScholarOne fields | Complete all author metadata |
A meta-analysis is queued for upload. The preflight catches three things: the graphical abstract was a forest plot (a result, not the mechanism) — replaced with a warming → biomass-response arrow; the abstract ran an illustrative 340 words against an assumed ~300 cap — trimmed; and the data statement read "on request" — rewritten to name the Dryad and Zenodo DOIs with the access route. Article type is confirmed as a Research Review (open section), not an unsolicited GCB Review. With those fixed, the remaining metadata fields pass. Word counts and the cap are illustrative; verify the current caps before submitting.
mechanism.
【Article type】... (cap met? confirm current cap) [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (300-word limit) + 6–10 keywords
【Graphical abstract】driver → response present? [Y/N]
【Data statement + DOI deposit】names repo, not "on request"? [Y/N]
【Cover letter + metadata】scope fit, ORCID, conflicts complete? [Y/N]
【Next】await decision → gcb-revision-and-rebuttal on revision../../resources/external_tools.md — submission portal, repositories, reference/template tooling../../resources/official-source-map.md — official GCB URLs behind every fact in this pack~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.