This checklist is the internal bar for creating a Zenodo-backed archival release with a DOI. It focuses on deposit integrity, metadata quality, and archive honesty rather than venue-specific theorem standards.
Use it alongside Publication Pre-Flight Standard. Zenodo readiness does not imply HOL-grade theorem readiness, and vice versa.
| Check | Requirement |
|---|---|
|
Repo root contains title, description, creators, keywords, subjects, and licence metadata. |
Release title is honest |
The title matches the actual artifact and does not overstate maturity, proof status, or deployment readiness. |
Author list is final |
Creator names, affiliations, and ordering match the paper and release notes. |
Keywords and subjects help discovery |
Metadata is specific enough for reviewers to find the artifact by topic rather than only by project name. |
| Check | Requirement |
|---|---|
Tagged archival release |
A dedicated |
Archive contents are reproducible |
The source archive contains the paper, proof/test metadata, and the build or verification instructions needed to inspect the claims. |
No template debris |
Placeholder fuzz files, copied template tests, fake benchmark harnesses, and unfinished scaffold text are removed from the archival surface. |
Licence posture is clear |
Source files carry SPDX headers where required, and paper/licence terms are explicit in the repo. |
| Check | Requirement |
|---|---|
README points to the artifact honestly |
The README explains what the archive contains, what is proven, what is empirical, and what remains future work. |
Stable gate and publication gate status are recorded |
The repo contains current audit notes or status docs showing whether the release is green, yellow, or red. |
Benchmarks and tests are reproducible |
If the abstract or paper includes counts or measurements, the archive includes the commands or logs needed to reproduce them. |
Proof boundaries are explicit |
Readers can distinguish mechanized results from unverified glue code, runtime assumptions, and external dependencies. |
| Check | Requirement |
|---|---|
DOI appears after sync |
Once Zenodo mints the DOI, add the DOI badge and citation details to the README. |
Archive and paper cross-reference each other |
The paper cites the DOI and the README/release notes point back to the paper. |
HAL follow-through is scheduled |
If the artifact is publication-facing, the corresponding HAL metadata and deposit work are tracked rather than forgotten after the Zenodo upload. |
- GREEN
-
The archive is metadata-complete, reproducible, and honest enough to mint a DOI without later needing to explain away the contents.
- YELLOW
-
The artifact is substantively ready, but one session of cleanup remains: missing metadata fields, missing DOI badge wiring, or incomplete archival notes.
- RED
-
The archive would preserve misleading claims, missing evidence, or scaffold artifacts that should never receive a DOI in their current form.