Codeseys/composer-replication-framework

1# Publication Release Checklist2 3> **Last updated:** 2026-05-254> **Current state:** all materials drafted; nothing posted publicly yet.5> Use this checklist to coordinate the publication wave when ready to ship.6 7## What's drafted8 9| Artifact | Path | Status | Word count (approx) |10|---|---|---|---|11| Longform methodology paper | [`publications/PAPER_v0.md`](PAPER_v0.md) | ✅ DRAFTED | ~6,500 |12| Blog post (HF Blog format) | [`publications/BLOG_POST.md`](BLOG_POST.md) | ✅ DRAFTED | ~2,400 |13| HF Discussion thread (repo Community tab) | [`publications/HF_DISCUSSION_POST.md`](HF_DISCUSSION_POST.md) | ✅ DRAFTED | ~700 |14| Twitter / X thread (13-tweet + 5-tweet + LinkedIn variants) | [`publications/TWITTER_THREAD.md`](TWITTER_THREAD.md) | ✅ DRAFTED | ~1,200 |15| `CITATION.cff` (HF/GitHub Citation Format) | [`/CITATION.cff`](../CITATION.cff) | ✅ DRAFTED | n/a |16| `CITATION.bib` (BibTeX) | [`/CITATION.bib`](../CITATION.bib) | ✅ DRAFTED | n/a |17| Repo README (model card with frontmatter) | [`/README.md`](../README.md) | ✅ Already published (v3 with wave 4 status) | ~1,000 |18 19All draft materials are in `publications/` and **not yet posted**. Nothing is gated by review; everything is a self-publish decision. Ready to ship.20 21## Pre-flight check before shipping any of these22 23These items should be confirmed before posting any of the public-facing materials. Most are already done from earlier waves but listing here for completeness:24 25- [x] HF repo is public (`Codeseys/composer-replication-framework`)26- [x] All linked URLs resolve (cross-checked during drafts)27- [x] Test suite passes (`38/38` as of wave 4)28- [x] Spike 001 is reproducible (deterministic states + recorded results)29- [x] Cursor blog is correctly summarized (audit notice in `research/01-composer-2.5.md`)30- [x] Upstream papers cited correctly (OPSD, SDPO, Cursor blog with arXiv IDs verified)31- [x] License is MIT and consistent across `LICENSE` + `README.md` frontmatter + `CITATION.cff`32- [ ] **`CITATION.cff` author block updated with real name/ORCID** if desired (currently just "Codeseys")33- [ ] **Choose final author identity** for the byline (Codeseys handle? real name? affiliation?)34- [ ] **HF Discussion title / tags chosen** — suggested in `HF_DISCUSSION_POST.md`35- [ ] **Blog thumbnail prepared** — placeholder path in `BLOG_POST.md` frontmatter (`/blog/assets/composer-replication-framework/thumbnail.png`); needs a real image36- [ ] **arXiv submission decided** — see § "arXiv submission" below37 38## Sequencing recommendation39 40If publishing all materials, this order minimizes risk and maximizes signal:41 421. **HF Discussion post first** (lowest-stakes — repo Community tab; anyone landing on the repo will see it; it pre-announces the methodology paper).432. **Blog post / personal site second** (anchor narrative, ~2,400 words, easy to share).443. **X / LinkedIn third** (after the blog post URL exists to anchor the thread).454. **arXiv submission last** (if doing this — needs more polish; see below).46 47Three-day gap between (1) and (2) is reasonable to let the discussion post collect any early feedback that should be incorporated into the blog.48 49## Distribution / amplification ideas50 51- Cross-post the blog to:52  - HuggingFace blog (PR against `huggingface/blog` repo). Their submission process is documented at https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/en/blog53  - Personal blog / Substack / Medium54- Post the discussion in:55  - r/LocalLLaMA (will be eaten by their algorithm but worth one shot)56  - r/MachineLearning if you tag `[R]` and frame as "novel methodology, no results yet — looking for feedback"57  - HackerNews "Show HN: …" — pre-experimental disclosure should be in the title58  - LessWrong / Alignment Forum if you frame the reward-hacking section as the lead59- Tag in the Twitter thread:60  - `@cursor_ai` (Cursor team)61  - `@huggingface` (TRL team)62  - `@volcanoengine` (VeRL team)63  - `@MoonshotAI` (Kimi K2.5)64  - `@PrimeIntellect`65 66## arXiv submission (decide later)67 68The methodology paper is currently in markdown. Pros and cons of a formal arXiv release:69 70**Pros**71- Citable DOI; appears in Google Scholar / Semantic Scholar72- Reaches a non-HF research audience73- Forces a higher polish bar, which catches errors74 75**Cons**76- Needs LaTeX conversion (~1 day of formatting work)77- The "no experimental results yet" framing is unusual for arXiv; reviewers may dismiss78- Once posted, it's permanent — corrections live as v2/v3 markers79 80**Recommendation:** post the HF blog and discussion first; decide on arXiv only after spike 002–004 produce results. Then make it a v0.1 paper *with* experimental backing. The current methodology paper becomes Section 2–4 of that future paper, with new sections 5+ for the empirical results.81 82If you do submit to arXiv now anyway: cs.LG primary, cs.AI cross-list. Title same as `PAPER_v0.md`. Abstract from the paper. Frame in the comments section as "pre-experimental methodology release; experimental validation in follow-up."83 84## Embargo / coordination notes85 86- **Cursor team coordination:** not strictly required (their blog is public, their cited papers are public, no proprietary info), but a polite heads-up tweet on day-of release is reasonable since the post heavily engages their work. `@cursor_ai` tag on tweet 1 of the X thread.87- **OPSD authors coordination:** Siyan Zhao et al. — also not required (MIT code, public paper) but tagging the lead author on the X thread is a polite signal of citation. Their handles: try `@siyan_zhao` (verify before tagging).88- **SDPO authors coordination:** same — Hübotter et al. lead author handles unverified, skip tagging if not findable.89 90## Risk register91 92| Risk | Likelihood | Mitigation |93|---|---|---|94| Someone runs spike 004 first and beats us to publication | Medium | Acknowledged. Trade-off accepted. The integration architecture is independently citable. |95| Methodology error caught after publication | Medium | Drafts have been audited (DeepWiki for code, primary-source-read for Cursor blog). 38 unit tests catch wiring bugs. The "what's NOT proven" section in the paper is explicit about open claims. |96| Hostile read claiming we overclaim novelty | Low | The paper explicitly compares to rStar / Math-Shepherd / Magpie / MoA and concedes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in §9. |97| Cursor team objects to characterization | Low | Everything cited from their public blog with explicit `[BLOG-VERIFIED]` tags. SDPO/OPSD framing is supported by their own footnote. |98| Repo gets a flood of PRs / discussion noise | Low | Welcome the noise. Maintain `CONTRIBUTING.md` (TBD) when traffic justifies. |99 100## Post-publication tracking (if you ship)101 102Things to monitor in the first 2 weeks after publication:103 104- HF repo: stars, forks, downloads (reachable via API)105- HF Discussions tab: new threads, especially anything flagging methodology errors106- X thread: replies from people working on TRL / VeRL / OpenEnv (especially extension-point critiques)107- Citations / mentions in adjacent posts (set up Google Scholar Alert)108- arXiv mentions (if any related work cites pre-print or blog)109 110If a methodology error surfaces, the response protocol:1111. Acknowledge in the Discussion thread within 24 hours.1122. Patch the affected file in the repo with a clear commit message.1133. Add an "Errata" section to `PAPER_v0.md` documenting what was wrong and what changed.1144. Don't try to silently rewrite history.115 116---117 118*Drafts ready. Ship when you decide. The repo is in a clean state to support any subset of the publication wave above.*119