| name | proofread |
| description | Proofread the sewage-house-prices manuscript. Checks 6 categories — structure, claims-evidence alignment, identification fidelity, writing quality, grammar, and compilation. Produces a scored report without editing files. This skill should be used when asked to "proofread", "review the paper", "check the manuscript", or "quality check". |
| argument-hint | [filename, section number, or 'all'] |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob","Write","Agent"] |
Proofread Manuscript
Run the proofreading protocol on the "Sewage in Our Waters" manuscript. Produces a report — does NOT edit source files.
Input: $ARGUMENTS — a .tex filename, section number (e.g. 01), or all.
Project-Specific Context
File Locations
- Manuscript sections:
docs/overleaf/*.tex
- Main document:
docs/overleaf/_main.tex
- Bibliography:
docs/overleaf/refs.bib
- Generated tables:
output/tables/*.tex (tabularray format)
- Generated figures:
output/figures/
- Quarto book:
book/*.qmd (for cross-referencing analysis)
- Analysis scripts:
scripts/R/09_analysis/ (for methodology verification)
Key Checks Specific to This Project
- Spill count/hours metrics must match the 12/24-hour counting methodology
- Radius distances (250m-10km) must be consistent across sections
- LSOA vs MSOA fixed effects must be correctly stated
- Upstream/downstream directionality must match river network logic
- Dry spill definition must be consistent with rainfall threshold used
Workflow
Step 1: Identify Files
- If
$ARGUMENTS is a specific .tex file: review that file
- If
$ARGUMENTS is a section number (e.g. 01): review docs/overleaf/0X_*.tex
- If
$ARGUMENTS is all: review _main.tex and all section files in docs/overleaf/
- If
$ARGUMENTS is a .qmd file: review as advisory (non-blocking)
Step 2: Run 6-Category Review
Category 1: Structure
- Contribution clearly stated within first 2 pages of introduction
- Standard economics paper sequence (intro → background → data → method → results → conclusion)
- Smooth transitions between sections
- Road map in introduction matches actual section ordering
- Appendix sections properly referenced from main text
Category 2: Claims-Evidence Alignment
- Every stated effect size matches a number in
output/tables/
- Percentage impacts correctly computed from log coefficients
- Sample sizes and time periods match data pipeline output
- Radius distances in text match those in tables
- "Significant" claims match actual p-values / confidence intervals
Category 3: Identification Fidelity
- Hedonic specification matches what
scripts/R/09_analysis/02_hedonic/ actually estimates
- Repeat sales approach correctly described per Palmquist (1982)
- Long difference specification matches grid-level scripts
- DiD/event study timing and treatment definitions consistent
- Instrument (hydraulic capacity) described consistently with
04_hydraulics_instrument.tex
- Dry spill identification matches rainfall threshold in data pipeline
Category 4: Writing Quality
- No banned hedging phrases ("interestingly", "it is worth noting", "arguably", "it is important to note")
- Notation consistent: LSOA, MSOA, EDM used correctly throughout
- Variable names in text match variable names in specifications
- No AI writing patterns (see humanizer skill for full checklist)
- Tone matches existing author voice
Category 5: Grammar & Polish
- Subject-verb agreement
- Article usage (particular attention to UK vs US English conventions)
- Tense consistency (present for methodology, past for results)
- No orphaned text, repeated words, or copy-paste artifacts
- Acronyms defined on first use
Category 6: Compilation & LaTeX
- All
\input{} files exist
- All
\textcite{} / \parencite{} keys exist in refs.bib
- All
\ref{} targets have matching \label{}
- Table/figure floats properly placed
- No overfull hbox warnings (check tabularray table widths)
- KOMA-Script class options used correctly
Step 3: Scoring
Apply deductions on a 0-100 scale:
| Issue | Deduction |
|---|
| Effect size doesn't match table output | -25 |
| Identification strategy misrepresented | -20 |
Broken citations (\textcite key missing) | -15 |
Broken cross-references (\ref undefined) | -15 |
| Radius/sample inconsistency across sections | -10 |
| Overfull hbox > 10pt | -10 per |
| Hedging language | -5 per (max -15) |
| Notation inconsistency | -5 |
| Overfull hbox 1-10pt | -1 per |
Step 4: Format-Aware Severity
| Context | Scoring |
|---|
Paper manuscript (.tex) | Blocking — issues must be fixed |
Quarto book (.qmd) | Advisory — reported but non-blocking |
Step 5: Present Report
Save report to output/log/proofread_report_[SECTION].md and present summary:
## Proofread Report: [filename]
**Score:** XX / 100
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
### Issues by Category
| Category | Critical | Major | Minor |
|----------|----------|-------|-------|
| Structure | ... | ... | ... |
| Claims-Evidence | ... | ... | ... |
| Identification | ... | ... | ... |
| Writing Quality | ... | ... | ... |
| Grammar | ... | ... | ... |
| LaTeX | ... | ... | ... |
### Top 3 Critical Issues
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
### Escalation Flags
- Claims don't match output → verify against analysis scripts
- Strategy misrepresented → review identification approach
- Framing issues → flag to authors
Principles
- Proofreader is a CRITIC, not a creator. Never write or revise — only report.
- Be precise. Quote exact text, cite exact line numbers and file paths.
- Cross-reference against actual output. Always verify numbers against
output/tables/.
- Proportional severity. A missing comma is Minor. Numbers that don't match regression output is Critical.
- Format-aware. Paper
.tex files are blocking; book .qmd files are advisory.
