dsh-nsfc-form-check

dsh-nsfc-form-check — NSFC proposal form review and identity-clue prompting against the institution's own roster

English · 简体中文 · Español · Português · हिन्दी

dsh plugin --profile <name> add dsh-nsfc-form-check

dsh-nsfc-form-check reads one NSFC proposal — its body lines, its electronic document properties, and the institution's own roster of identity terms — and checks that material against a versioned rule pack: whether a roster is configured at all, where the configured applicant, institution and advisor terms occur in the body and inside a configured line range, what the title, author, company and last-modified-by properties carry, whether the material fits the length limit the deployment set, whether the configured form-review items and duplicate-application disclosure are present, whether the advisor's name has been filled in as the yearly guidelines require, and whether any configured classified or sensitive term appears. Every finding names the clause it came from, states whether that clause is a direct requirement, a principle or a local configuration, and every check that could not run is listed in skipped with its reason.

Install

dsh plugin --profile <name> add dsh-nsfc-form-check
dsh --profile <name> --dump-config | grep 'dsh-nsfc-form-check'

What it looks like

*Workflow overview: document → rule pack → findings. The examples below use the real command surface.*

What it answers

Examples

The table below is the example set: the first row is the detailed walkthrough, the remaining rows are short cases.

Detailed output

Tool nsfc_form_check

Input

~~~json {"text":"申请代码：H0301\n项目名称：某信号通路在疾病进展中的作用机制研究","metadata":{},"roster":{"authorNames":[],"institutionNames":[],"advisorNames":[],"allowList":[]}} ~~~

Output

~~~json { "id": "dsh-nsfc-form-check.NF-001.811c9dc5", "ruleId": "NF-001", "severity": "warn", "locator": {}, "found": "未配置任何可核验的身份词（申请人姓名、依托单位名称、导师姓名均为空）", "expected": "匿名检查需要名单才能执行；未配置时其余匿名相关检查只能逐条报为未执行" } ~~~

*Observed from dsh-nsfc-form-check/tests/fixtures/NF-001/NF-001-unsafe.json*

You ask · What it answers Nobody filled in the applicant name list. Does the identity checking just pass? · No. NF-001 is the first thing reported when authorNames, institutionNames and advisorNames are all empty, and every identity check that needs those terms reports itself in skipped with its reason. An empty finding list therefore never means nothing was wrong — read NF-001 and the skipped entries before drawing any conclusion. A co-author with the same surname as the applicant appears in the body text. · NF-002 matches the configured authorNames literally, line by line, so a namesake, a common surname or a citation of another researcher's work can all be reported. The finding is a technical prompt only — 《国家自然科学基金条例》(国务院令第796号) 第二十一条 requires confidentiality from reviewers and says nothing that forbids a name in the body — so a term you have already cleared can be added to allowList. The author property holds a name. Is that reported, and does it need a configured list? · Yes, and no. NF-006 does not need a roster: with authorNames empty it still reports any non-empty author property, and with a roster configured it says whether the value matches an applicant name. NF-005, NF-007 and NF-008 do need an identity-term list and enter skipped without one. All four only read the properties, so they say nothing about the body text. I filled in the page and word limits myself. Will it tell me the proposal is too long? · Only within the limit you set. NF-010 ships maxLines and maxChars unset and enters skipped, because those limits change every year and by project type; once you fill them in it reports the extracted paragraph count or the character total that exceeds them. maxLines counts extracted paragraphs, not typeset pages, so it is not the same as a page count. Did the material include every form-review item our research office asks for? · NF-011 reports itself in skipped until require is configured, and with no checklist the plugin does not pretend to know one. Once configured it matches your match phrases literally and reports the ones it cannot find. It checks that the phrase is present, not that the column was filled in correctly or that the signature is genuine. We are re-submitting last year's proposal. Must the disclosure note be there? · NF-012 needs both markerPatterns, which recognise your template's wording for a repeat or follow-on application, and requiredDisclosure, which lists what must be disclosed. With either unset it enters skipped; when the markers are configured but no declaration is found it reports that this rule does not apply. It never assumes a disclosure wording, and never decides that a proposal really is a repeat.

Standards it follows

Document · Number · Cited by rules 《国家自然科学基金条例》 · 国务院令第796号 · NF-001, NF-002, NF-003, NF-004, NF-005, NF-006, NF-007, NF-008, NF-009, NF-010, NF-011, NF-012, NF-013, NF-014, NF-015 《2026 年度国家自然科学基金项目指南·申请规定》 · 2026 年度（逐年更新） · NF-014, NF-015

Boundary: this plugin checks an NSFC proposal's text and electronic document properties and reports the identity clues it finds, alongside the length and form-review items a deployment configures. It is not dsh-rulefile-check (which audits the legality of a regulatory document), not dsh-policy-brief-draft (which drafts a policy explainer), and not dsh-review-reply-check (which tracks reviewer comments). It reads one proposal and reports literal matches against cited clauses.

### ⚠️ Read this before using the anonymity checks

**There is no current national provision that forbids an applicant's name, institution or advisor

from appearing in an NSFC proposal.** Three independent texts were read in full for this plugin —

《国家自然科学基金条例》(国务院令第796号), the 2026 年度《项目指南·申请规定》, and the 2019 年度

guidelines — and none contains 匿名, 盲审, 活页, or any "must not appear" wording about identity.

The regulation does not contain the word 匿名 at all. Its avoidance clause (第二十条) requires a

reviewer from the applicant's own legal entity to recuse, which presupposes that the system knows

the applicant's institution — the opposite of an anonymous process.

So every finding this plugin makes about a name or an institution is a **technical observation for

a human to weigh**, labelled 身份线索词 and never phrased as a violation. The plugin is useful for a

research-office self-check, and it is wrong to use it as a compliance gate. Two rules go further

and cite the guidance verbatim: NF-014 checks that the advisor's name is filled in, because the

yearly guidelines require it, and NF-015 checks 涉密与敏感信息, which is the one "must not appear"

requirement that really exists — and its object is classified information, not identity.

Compatibility

Surface · Status Harness · Peer range >=0.1.2-rc.1 =0.2.0-0 =0.2.1-0 =24.0.0 Platforms · All (plain ESM; no native code, no network, no model call) Tool mode · Works in native and ptc; for a batch of proposals use ptc

What it does

Registers the nsfc_form_check tool. It reads one proposal — body text, document properties, and the institution's own roster of identity terms — applies a versioned rule pack, and returns a report in which every finding names the clause it came from and states whether that clause is a direct requirement, a principle, or a local configuration.

Rule · Check · Severity · Basis kind NF-001 · a roster is configured, otherwise the identity checks cannot run · warn · principle NF-002 · the body mentions an applicant name · warn · principle NF-003 · the body mentions an institution name · warn · principle NF-004 · the body mentions an advisor name · warn · principle NF-005 · the document title property contains an identity clue · info · principle NF-006 · the author property is non-empty or names the applicant · info · principle NF-007 · the company property names the institution · info · principle NF-008 · the last-modified-by property names the applicant · info · principle NF-009 · identity clues inside a configured line range · info · principle NF-010 · the material fits the configured length limit · info · local NF-011 · the material contains the configured form-review items · info · local NF-012 · a repeat or follow-on proposal carries the configured disclosure · info · local NF-013 · identity clues inside a configured scope · info · principle NF-014 · the advisor's name is present, as the yearly guidelines require · info · local NF-015 · the material contains no configured classified term · info · local

Rules whose thresholds are yearly or per-project-type ship empty on purpose. They report themselves in skipped until configured, so an unfilled threshold can never read as "nothing wrong".

Configuration

Every tunable lives in the Schemastery schema in src/config.ts. The roster is the one thing this plugin cannot work without: an identity check needs a list of the terms to look for, and that list is institution-specific, so it stays in the deployment's own configuration rather than travelling with the package.

Key · Type · Default · Description rulesFile · string · rules/nsfc-form-check.yaml · Rule-pack path, relative to the package root disabledRules · string[] · [] · Rule ids to stop running; each appears in skipped onlyRules · string[] · [] · Run only these rule ids; empty runs every rule skipNotes · string · "" · Note appended to every skipped reason authorNames · string[] · [] · Applicant names to look for institutionNames · string[] · [] · Institution and unit names to look for advisorNames · string[] · [] · Advisor names to look for allowList · string[] · [] · Terms to ignore even when they match timeoutMs · number · 120000 · Cooperative tool timeout budget

Rule-level parameters worth knowing:

• NF-009 coverLines — how many leading lines count as the cover page. Empty means the plugin does

not assume any institution's template.

• NF-010 maxLines / maxChars — the length limit **for the year and project type you are filing

under**. maxLines counts extracted paragraphs, which is not the same as typeset pages.

• NF-011 require — your form-review item list, as [{ label, match }] pairs.
• NF-012 markerPatterns / requiredDisclosure — how a repeat proposal is recognised in your

template, and what it must disclose.

• NF-014 requireMention + advisorNames — the inverse check, off until you enable it for the year.
• NF-015 secretTerms — your confidentiality office's term list. The plugin ships none, because what

counts as classified is defined by state secrecy rules, not by this plugin.

Material format

Point the tool at a .docx and it reads the body text and the document properties itself. A .pdf is not parsed: page-accurate extraction is a different problem with a different failure mode, and a wrong page number is worse than none, so pass the text you extracted with your own tool. .txt, .md and .json are accepted too; the JSON form carries both parts explicitly.

{
  "lines": ["申请代码：H0301", "一、立项依据与研究内容", "……"],
  "metadata": { "title": "某信号通路机制研究", "author": "", "company": "", "lastModifiedBy": "" }
}

Matching is literal and line-oriented, so every finding carries a line number you can jump to. A term shorter than two characters is ignored, and anything in allowList is ignored, because a common surname would otherwise flood the report.

Rule sources

Rule data lives in rules/nsfc-form-check.yaml. Every rule carries a document, a document number, a clause in the source's own numbering, a verbatim excerpt and the URL the excerpt was read from. The loader enforces that an excerpt is a real quotation of at least eight characters, and that a check resting only on a general principle or a local policy can never be declared error.

Four findings shaped this pack:

1. The regulation was revised. 《国家自然科学基金条例》 is now 国务院令第796号 (revised

2024-11-08, in force 2025-01-01), superseding 国务院令第487号 (2007). Clause numbers moved: the review-confidentiality duty is now 第二十一条, not the old 第二十四条. This pack cites only the current revision, and a test asserts that the superseded order number never appears.

1. Anonymity has no legal basis, as set out at the top of this file. The rules state this in their

own notes so a reader of the report sees it without consulting the README.

1. **The advisor's name is *required*, not forbidden.** The yearly guidelines instruct applicants to

fill in their graduate and postdoctoral advisor names truthfully. NF-014 therefore checks the opposite of NF-004, and the pack explains why the two coexist.

1. Yearly policy is configuration, not code. Page and word limits, the itemised limits on how many

proposals may be filed, which project types use a lump-sum budget, and the yearly list of non-acceptance situations all change between years; every one of them ships empty.

The full clause-verification report, including the sources that were checked and rejected, is in rules/evidence/clause-verification.md.

Troubleshooting

• The plugin installs but the tool never appears. Check that main resolves to lib/index.mjs

and that pnpm run build produced it; a wrong main makes the loader skip the entry silently.

• Every identity check is skipped. No roster is configured. Fill in authorNames,

institutionNames and advisorNames, and NF-001 will stop reporting.

• The report is noisy with a common surname. Add the term to allowList; the plugin refuses to

guess which matches are meaningful.

• A `.pdf` is refused. By design. Extract the text with a tool you trust and pass it through

text, or convert the proposal to .docx.

• `dsh plugin add` refuses the package as incompatible. The peer range covers 0.1.x and 0.2.x;