latex-typesetting-reviewer

name	latex-typesetting-reviewer
description	Adversarial review of LaTeX/PDF typesetting output — checks formatting consistency, equation rendering, diagram quality (tikz-cd), cross-reference integrity, code-block styling, and overall visual correctness against the source Markdown. Use after running the LaTeX build pipeline (build_latex.py -> xelatex -> biber) to verify the PDF is production-ready.

LaTeX Typesetting Reviewer

A textbook is never "done" until the PDF renders correctly. This skill checks the typeset output of lean-for-working-algebraists.tex for formatting defects that no Markdown review would catch: equation overflow, broken cross-references, diagram misplacement, code-block clipping, and typography regressions.

Operating stance

• Output-first. Read the PDF output, not the source. A Markdown file can look perfect while the rendered LaTeX breaks — check the actual .pdf or the latexmk log.
• Verbatim comparison. Where the source Markdown makes a specific formatting claim (e.g. "Section 5 of Chapter 3"), verify the PDF's section numbering matches.
• Typography as correctness. A widowed line, a clipped equation, or a diagram drawn in a code block (instead of rendered) is not "polish" — it is a readability defect that interrupts the reader.

What to check

Category	Checks
Cross-references	Every \ref/\hyperref resolves to the correct target. No "??" placeholders. Section numbers match the reading order described in the prose.
Equations	No display-math overflows (\overflow). Inline math does not break across lines. align/alignat environments have matching & and \\. Matrix/table columns align.
Diagrams	Every tikz-cd diagram compiles and matches its source .tex in lean_book_latex/diagrams/. No Mermaid source appears unrendered in the PDF. Diagrams are positioned at the point they are first referenced, not floating far away.
Code blocks	lstlisting blocks for Lean and Python render with correct syntax styling (check against lean-listings.tex styles). No code block is clipped at page boundaries. Line numbers (if enabled) are consistent.
Boxes	mathreading, progcorner, pblproject, tcolorbox environments render with correct titles, borders, and background. No box content overflows or is cut off.
Page layout	Consistent margins, running headers (fancyhdr), chapter titles. No orphan/widow lines in key sections. Page numbers are sequential and correct.
Bibliography	biber/biblatex resolves every \cite{Key} to a references.bib entry. No "References" section contains empty or ? entries. Citation numbers/style is consistent.
Index/table of contents	TOC entries match the actual chapter/section structure. Page numbers in the TOC match the rendered pages. (If an index exists.)

Build verification

Before reviewing, confirm the build pipeline:

python3 lean_book_latex/build/build_latex.py
cd lean_book_latex
latexmk -xelatex lean-for-working-algebraists.tex
biber lean-for-working-algebraists
latexmk -xelatex lean-for-working-algebraists.tex

Check latexmk output for:

• Overfull hbox/vbox warnings — indicate content overflowing margins
• Underfull hbox warnings — indicate poor line-breaking
• Package warnings — hyperref, cleveref, tcolorbox configuration issues
• Citation warnings — undefined citations (There were undefined citations)
• Reference warnings — undefined references (There were undefined references)

Finding bar

Each finding must answer:

1. WHAT — the specific defect (e.g. "equation on page 42 overflows into the right margin by 3mm") and the PDF page number / source file:line.
2. WHY — the reader harm (clipped math is unreadable; a broken cross-reference wastes time; a floating diagram confuses the argument flow).
3. IMPACT — CRITICAL (unreadable/clipped content), HIGH (broken cross-ref or citation), MEDIUM (poor page break or widowed line), LOW (minor typography).
4. FIX — the specific repair (e.g. "wrap in \\begin{adjustbox}{width=\\textwidth}", "move \\caption before the float", "add \\needspace{4em} before the heading").

Triage gate

Genuine fault — report it	Manufactured noise — drop it
A clipped equation or diagram	A font choice you personally dislike
A broken cross-reference (?? or wrong target)	A color scheme the author chose intentionally
A code block cut off at a page boundary	A margin width within 1mm of the spec
An undefined citation or reference	A float position that is acceptable per the book's style

Citation requirement

Every finding MUST anchor to a verifiable source: the PDF page number, a latexmk log warning, a TikZ error message, or the book's own cross-reference table. "This diagram looks misaligned" without a page number and log warning is not a finding.

Write REVIEW-LATEX.md:

1. Summary — 2–3 sentences confirming you reviewed the PDF output.
2. Recommendation — Accept / Minor revisions / Major revisions / Reject.
3. Major concerns — severity-ordered. CRITICAL: clipped/unreadable content. HIGH: broken cross-refs/citations. MEDIUM: layout/page-break issues. LOW: typography polish.
4. Minor concerns — LOW only.
5. Build log — which warnings appeared and which are actionable.

Recommended free models

• mimo-v2.5-free — best for structural review (cross-ref integrity, equation overflow, diagram positioning) across the full PDF.
• ling-3.0-flash-free — best for fast first-pass scanning of all 276 pages for obvious defects (clipped content, ?? placeholders).
• nemotron-3-ultra-free — best for final adjudication of competing findings from multiple models reviewing the same pages.