# Proofread > Use when you need academic proofreading of a LaTeX paper (11 check categories). - Skill: `lhh666-6/proofread` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add lhh666-6/proofread` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/lhh666-6/proofread/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: lhh666-6 (https://skillmd.com/u/lhh666-6) - Updated: 2026-09-21 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/lhh666-6/proofread --- # Academic Proofreading **Report-only skill.** Never edit source files — produce `reviews/proofread/.md` only. ## Output Path Per `rules/review-artefact-routing.md` (auto-loads in research projects (path-scoped to `paper-*/` and `paper/`)): - **Source slug:** `proofread` - **Write reports to:** `reviews/proofread/YYYY-MM-DD.md` inside the project. Path is relative to the research project root, not the Task-Management repo. - **Never** at project root (`./CRITIC-REPORT.md`-style filenames are forbidden — pre-rule layout). - **Idempotency:** if today's file exists, append a same-day descriptor (`{date}-revision.md`, `{date}-r2.md`, `{date}-pre-submission.md`) — never overwrite. - **Index update:** if `reviews/INDEX.md` exists, write a one-line entry under "Latest per source" pointing at the new file. Otherwise `/review-recap` will rebuild the index next time it runs. - **Infrastructure repos** (Task-Management, atlas-workspace, etc.): this section does not apply — the path-scoped rule won't load there. ## When to Use - Before sending a draft to supervisors - Before submission to a journal/conference - After major revisions to check consistency - When you want a fresh-eyes check on writing quality ## When NOT to Use - **Formal audits** — use the Referee 2 agent for systematic verification - **Argument quality** — use `/devils-advocate` for logical scrutiny - **Citation completeness** — use `/bib-validate` for bibliography cross-referencing (though this skill flags obvious citation format issues) ## Workflow 1. **Locate files**: Find all `.tex` files in the project (and `.log` files for LaTeX diagnostics) 2. **Read the document**: Read all `.tex` source files in order 3. **Run 11 check categories** (below) 4. **Produce report**: Write `reviews/proofread/.md` under the project directory (create the directory if it does not exist: `mkdir -p reviews/proofread/`). Do NOT overwrite previous reports — each review is timestamped to the minute. Canonical convention: `~/Task-Management/docs/reference/review-state-schema.md`. ## Check Categories ### 1. Grammar & Spelling - Spelling errors (including technical terms) - Subject-verb agreement - Sentence fragments or run-ons - Misused words (e.g., "effect" vs "affect", "which" vs "that") - American English is the default for all papers and conference articles. Flag any British English spellings (e.g., -ise, -our, -re, analyse, scepticism). ### 2. Notation Consistency - Variable notation used consistently throughout (e.g., always `$x_i$` or always `$x_{i}$`, not both) - Subscript/superscript style (e.g., `$\beta_1$` vs `$\beta_{OLS}$`) - Matrix/vector formatting conventions (bold, uppercase, etc.) - Consistent use of `\mathbb`, `\mathcal`, `\mathbf` for sets, operators, vectors - Equation numbering: all referenced equations numbered, unreferenced ones unnumbered ### 3. Citation Format - Consistent use of `\citet` (textual) vs `\citep` (parenthetical) - No raw `\cite{}` when `\citet`/`\citep` is available - Author name spelling matches between text mentions and citation keys - Multiple citations in chronological or alphabetical order (check which convention) - No "As shown by (Author, Year)" — should be "As shown by \citet{key}" ### 4. Academic Tone - No informal contractions (don't, can't, won't → do not, cannot, will not) - No first-person overuse (some "we" is fine; excessive "I think" is not) - No casual hedging ("pretty much", "kind of", "a lot") - Appropriate use of hedging language ("suggests" vs "proves") - No exclamation marks in body text - Consistent tense (present for established facts, past for specific studies) - **Filler hedge phrases to flag** (delete on sight): "interestingly", "importantly", "it is worth noting", "it should be noted that", "needless to say", "of course", "obviously", "clearly" (unless something is literally clear from a figure) - **Vague quantifiers to flag**: "very", "quite", "rather", "somewhat", "fairly" — replace with specific magnitudes or delete - **Tautological constructions**: "significant and important", "novel and new", "unique and distinctive" — one adjective suffices ### 5. LaTeX-Specific Issues - **Overfull hbox**: Check `.log` file for `Overfull \hbox` warnings — report line numbers and severity (badness) - **Equation overflow**: Long equations that exceed column/page width - **Float placement**: Check for `[h!]` or `[H]` overuse; prefer `[tbp]` - **Missing labels**: Figures/tables/equations referenced but without `\label{}` - **Orphan/widow lines**: Check for `\\` abuse that creates bad page breaks - **Unresolved references**: `??` in output indicating broken `\ref{}` or `\cite{}` ### 6. Citation Voice Balance Check the ratio of in-line (`\citet`) to parenthetical (`\citep`) citations: - **Count in-line vs parenthetical citations** across the full document - **Flag if ratio exceeds 1:1** (in-line should be the minority) — Major - **Flag runs of 3+ consecutive in-line citations** in a paragraph or section — Major - **Flag paragraphs that open with an in-line citation** when the author's identity isn't the point — Minor - **Flag "As shown by \citet{}" patterns** where parenthetical would be more natural — Minor - **Report the overall ratio** (e.g., "42 parenthetical, 28 in-line — ratio 1.5:1") See `docs/reference/conventions.md` § Citation Voice Balance for the full convention. ### 7. TikZ Diagram Review If the document contains TikZ code (`\begin{tikzpicture}` or `\tikz`): - **Label positioning**: Labels not overlapping nodes or edges - **Geometric accuracy**: Coordinates and angles consistent with intended layout - **Visual semantics**: Arrow styles match meaning (solid = direct, dashed = indirect, etc.) - **Spacing**: Nodes not too cramped or too spread out - **Consistency**: Style matches across all diagrams in the document - **Standalone compilability**: Each diagram should compile independently For detailed spatial verification (Bezier depth calculations, gap minimums, shape boundary clearance), see [`../shared/tikz-rules.md`](../shared/tikz-rules.md). ### 8. Numeric Text↔Table Cross-Check Cross-check every number mentioned in the prose against the corresponding table or figure. Flag ANY discrepancy, no matter how small. - **Coefficient claims**: "a 3.2 percentage point increase" in text vs coefficient of 0.031 in the table — flag the mismatch - **Sample sizes**: "N = 1,247" in text vs N row in table — must match exactly - **Significance claims**: "statistically significant at the 5% level" in text vs the actual stars/p-value in the table - **Summary statistics**: means, medians, standard deviations mentioned in prose must match the descriptive statistics table - **Figure references**: claims about trends or magnitudes must be consistent with what the figure shows - **Table/figure existence**: every table/figure referenced in text must exist; every table/figure in the document must be referenced in text - **N consistency**: the number of observations should be consistent across related specifications unless there's an explained reason for differences ### 9. Causal Language Audit Audit causal claims against the stated identification strategy. The strength of causal language must match the strength of the research design. - **Flag "X causes Y"** or "the causal effect of X" when the identification strategy is observational (OLS with controls, correlational) — should be "is associated with" or "predicts" - **Flag "proves"** — almost never appropriate; use "provides evidence consistent with" - **Match language to design**: - DiD/RDD/IV → "we estimate the causal effect" is acceptable with qualifiers - OLS with controls → "we find a relationship" or "our estimates suggest" - Correlational → never use causal language - **Flag "significant" ambiguity** — must always be clear whether "statistically significant" or "economically meaningful/large" - **Flag coefficient descriptions without units or scale** — "a coefficient of 0.031" means nothing without knowing the units of X and Y - **Flag correlation/causation conflation** — any statement that slides from an association to a causal claim without an identification argument ### 10. Equation Completeness Verify that mathematical notation is complete and internally consistent. - **Every variable in an equation must be defined** in the text (either before or immediately after the equation) - **Error terms**: properly specified (ε_it vs u_i vs e_ij) and consistent with the econometric framework described - **Equation numbering**: sequential, and all cross-references to equations are correct - **Subscript/index structure must match the level of observation** — e.g., if the text describes individual-level variation, the equation should have individual subscripts, not county-level - **Summation/expectation indices**: verify bounds match the described sample - **Consistent notation across equations**: don't switch between β and b for the same coefficient, or between X_i and x_i ### 11a. Anonymity (double-blind venues only) If the project's vault submission frontmatter or AGENTS.md indicates a double-blind venue (CCS, NDSS, S&P, USENIX, ICML, NeurIPS, ICLR, FAccT, AAAI, etc.), run paper-side checks P1–P8 from `~/.Codex/skills/_shared/double-blind-anonymity-checklist.md` and flag every FAIL as **Critical**: - **P1** title page anonymized (no `\author{}` with real names) - **P2** no `\thanks{}`, `\acknowledgements`, funding, or grant references in body - **P3** body uses third-person self-reference (no "we previously showed", "in our prior work") - **P4** **self-citation bib entries are blinded** when the cited paper's authors overlap the submission's — this is the CCS 2026 #1328 desk-reject trigger - **P5** body text doesn't name authors of self-cited works (no "Smith and Lee [N]") - **P6** no identifying URLs (personal websites, GitHub repos with handles) - **P7** PDF metadata clean (`pdfinfo` shows no Author / identifying Subject) - **P8** figures/screenshots have no identifying watermarks Skip this section only when the user explicitly says single-blind / non-blind. ### 11. Preprint Staleness For every citation that looks like a preprint or working paper, check whether a peer-reviewed version has since been published. Flag stale preprints as Major issues. - **Detection signals**: URL contains `arxiv.org`, `ssrn.com`, `nber.org`; journal field says "Working Paper", "mimeo"; entry type is `@techreport` or `@unpublished` - **Action**: note the stale citation and suggest the published venue/year - **This is a lighter version of `/bib-validate`'s preprint check** — only flag obvious cases visible from the `.bib` or `\bibitem` entries. For thorough preprint checking, recommend running `/bib-validate` separately. ## Severity Levels | Level | Definition | Example | |-------|-----------|---------| | **Critical** | Will be noticed by reviewers, may cause rejection | Broken references, major grammar errors, inconsistent core notation, text↔table number mismatch, causal overclaiming with weak design | | **Major** | Noticeable quality issue | Inconsistent citation style, tone issues, overfull hbox > 10pt, undefined variable in equation, stale preprint, ambiguous "significant" | | **Minor** | Polish issue | Occasional British/American mix, minor spacing, missing equation number for referenced equation | ## Quality Scoring Apply numeric quality scoring using the shared framework and skill-specific rubric: - **Framework:** [`../shared/quality-scoring.md`](../shared/quality-scoring.md) — severity tiers, thresholds, verdict rules - **Rubric:** [`references/quality-rubric.md`](references/quality-rubric.md) — issue-to-deduction mappings for this skill Start at 100, deduct per issue found, apply verdict. Insert the Score Block into the report after the summary table. ## Recurring Pattern Grouping When the same issue appears 3+ times, **group it as a single pattern finding** instead of listing each instance separately. This prevents reports bloated with 50 individual items when the real message is "you have 3 recurring problems." **Format:** ``` ### M3: Hedge phrase "interestingly" (8 instances) - **Category:** Academic tone - **Locations:** lines 42, 67, 103, 145, 189, 203, 267, 301 - **Problem:** Filler hedge phrase adds no content - **Fix:** Delete all 8 instances ``` One deduction for the pattern (not 8 separate deductions). Escalation still applies: 5+ instances of the same minor issue → one Major deduction. ## Report Format ```markdown # Proofread Report **Document:** [filename] **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD **Pages:** [approximate] ## Summary | Category | Critical | Major | Minor | |----------|----------|-------|-------| | Grammar & spelling | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Notation consistency | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Citation format | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Academic tone | 0 | 0 | 0 | | LaTeX-specific | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Citation voice balance | 0 | 0 | 0 | | TikZ diagrams | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Numeric cross-check | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Causal language | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Equation completeness | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Preprint staleness | 0 | 0 | 0 | | **Total** | **0** | **0** | **0** | ## Critical Issues [List each with file, line/section, and specific issue] ## Major Issues [List each with file, line/section, and specific issue] ## Minor Issues [List each with file, line/section, and specific issue] ## Quality Score | Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | **Score** | XX / 100 | | **Verdict** | Ship / Ship with notes / Revise / Revise (major) / Blocked | ### Deductions | # | Issue | Tier | Deduction | Category | |---|-------|------|-----------|----------| | 1 | [description] | [tier] | -X | [category] | | | **Total deductions** | | **-XX** | | ## Recommendations [Optional: overall observations about the writing — prioritise fixes by deduction size] ``` ## Council Mode (Optional) For high-stakes pre-submission checks, run proofreading in council mode to get independent assessments from multiple LLM providers. Council mode surfaces formatting issues that any single model might miss. **Trigger:** "Council proofread my paper" or "thorough proofread" **How it works:** 1. The main session reads the document and constructs the proofreading prompt 2. The prompt is sent to 3 different models via `council-cli` (or `council-api` for API mode) 3. Each model independently runs the 7 check categories 4. Cross-review identifies agreements and disputes 5. Chairman synthesis produces a single `PROOFREAD-REPORT.md` with council notes **Invocation (CLI backend — free with existing subscriptions):** ```bash cd packages/council-cli uv run python -m council_cli \ --prompt-file /tmp/proofread-prompt.txt \ --context-file /tmp/paper-content.txt \ --output-md /tmp/proofread-council.md \ --chairman Codex \ --timeout 180 ``` See `skills/shared/council-protocol.md` for the full orchestration protocol. **Value:** Diminishing returns for pure formatting — council mode is most valuable when combined with citation voice balance and notation consistency checks, where different models have genuinely different pattern recognition. ## Log to REVIEW-STATE.md (final step) After writing the proofread report, append a row to the project's `REVIEW-STATE.md`: ```bash bash ~/.Codex/skills/_shared/review-state-log.sh \ --check proofread \ --paper "" \ --verdict "" \ --open-issues "/" \ --report "reviews/proofread/.md" \ --notes "" \ [--trigger "pre-submission-report|review-cluster"] ``` - Verdict: PASS if no issues found across any category; ISSUES FOUND otherwise. - Open issues: total count across all 7 (or 11) check categories at run time. - Trigger: pass orchestrator name only if invoked via `/pre-submission-report` or `/review-cluster`. Otherwise omit. Schema: `~/Task-Management/docs/reference/review-state-schema.md`. ## Cross-References - **`/bib-validate`** — For thorough bibliography cross-referencing - **`/latex`** — For compilation and error resolution (run before proofreading to ensure the document compiles cleanly) - **Referee 2 agent** — For formal code + paper auditing - **`/devils-advocate`** — For argument quality and logical scrutiny