read-claim

name	read-claim
description	Deep extraction of all verifiable claims from a research paper. Actively proposes implicit claims, splits compound statements, and flags cross-reference inconsistencies.
author	PaperDoctor Research
license	MIT
argument-hint	["paper_dir"]
allowed-tools	Read, Glob

Extract Claims

Extract all claims the authors make about their own work — both explicit and implicit. Actively look for hidden claims, split compound statements, and check cross-reference consistency.

Workflow

- [ ] Step 1: Read full paper text
- [ ] Step 2: Extract explicit claims
- [ ] Step 3: Extract implicit claims
- [ ] Step 4: Split compound claims
- [ ] Step 5: Cross-reference check
- [ ] Step 6: Save report

Step 1: Read Full Paper Text

Read {paper_dir}/metadata/{arxiv_id}/mathpix/{arxiv_id}.md

Read the entire document — do not split by section.

Step 2: Extract Explicit Claims

A claim is any assertion the authors make about their own work that could in principle be validated.

Not a claim:

• Background statements ("Transformers have achieved success in NLP")
• Descriptions of other work ("As shown in [10], ...")
• Definitions ("We define ego-video as first-person footage")
• Writing quality issues (grammar, typos) — these belong in read-txt, not here

Each claim:

{
  "id": 1,
  "source": "abstract",
  "quote": "exact sentence or phrase from the paper",
  "claim": "concise restatement of what is being asserted",
  "evidence_type": ["experiment"]
}

source: section where the claim appears (abstract, introduction, method, experiments, conclusion, appendix)

quote: exact original text — do not paraphrase

claim: clean one-sentence restatement of the assertion

evidence_type (array — a claim may belong to multiple types):

Value	Meaning
experiment	Should be validated by the paper's own experiments
related_work	Involves another paper — cited fact, baseline comparison, or novelty claim
theoretical	Supported by mathematical derivation or proof
code	Verifiable by inspecting the released code

Every claim MUST map to at least one type. If unsure, apply this priority:

• Can it be checked by reading code/configs? → code
• Can it be checked against tables/figures? → experiment
• Is it a "should have done but didn't" ablation? → experiment
• Can it be checked against published literature? → related_work
• Is it a formal argument or derivation? → theoretical

Hints for related_work: assign when the claim cites or characterizes another paper, compares against a baseline, or asserts novelty ("first to", "pioneering"). Often combined with experiment when backed by the paper's own tables.

Step 3: Extract Implicit Claims

Actively look for assertions that are implied but not directly stated:

Numeric implications

• If abstract says "75.1% accuracy" and Table 2 also shows 75.1%, this implies "abstract matches Table 2" — extract as an experiment claim
• If a figure caption says "our method converges faster", extract the convergence claim

Scope overclaims

• "effective" without qualifier → implies works in all settings
• "state-of-the-art" → implies tested against all relevant baselines
• "lightweight" → implies compared in model size / FLOPs
• "scalable" → implies tested at multiple scales
• Note what would be needed to fully support the claim in implicit_reason

Method-result gaps

• Method section describes a component, but experiments don't ablate it → extract as: "Component X contributes to performance" (implicit, untested)
• A loss term is described but no ablation shows its effect → extract

Comparative implications

• "outperforms X" → implies same evaluation protocol as X
• "with only 256K data" → implies others use more data (extract the comparison)
• "zero-shot" → implies no task-specific fine-tuning (verify definition matches standard usage)

{
  "id": 33,
  "source": "experiments",
  "quote": "ShowUI achieves state-of-the-art grounding performance",
  "claim": "ShowUI outperforms all published methods on Screenspot grounding at time of submission",
  "evidence_type": ["experiment", "related_work"],
  "implicit_reason": "SOTA claim implies comparison against all relevant published baselines, but paper only compares against 5 methods"
}

Step 4: Split Compound Claims

A single sentence often packs multiple independently verifiable assertions. Always split by the smallest verifiable unit:

• "We achieve 75.1% on ScreenSpot, 70.0% on AITW, and competitive results on Mind2Web" → 3 claims
• "Our method is lightweight (2B) and uses less data (256K)" → 2 claims (model size, data size)
• "Token selection reduces tokens by 33% and speeds up training by 1.4x" → 2 claims (reduction rate, speedup)

Each sub-claim gets its own id and may have different evidence_type.

Step 5: Cross-Reference Check

Scan for internal consistency issues between sections:

• Abstract numbers vs. table numbers — do they match exactly?
• Method description vs. code/config (if mentioned) — any discrepancy?
• Figures/tables referenced in text — do the cited values match what's shown?
• Contribution list in intro vs. what experiments actually validate

Extract these as claims with evidence_type: ["experiment"]:

{
  "id": 45,
  "source": "abstract vs experiments",
  "quote": "75.1% accuracy in zero-shot screenshot grounding",
  "claim": "Abstract accuracy 75.1% matches Table 2 ShowUI row average",
  "evidence_type": ["experiment"]
}

Step 6: Save Report

Output: {paper_dir}/reports/check_claim.json

{
  "summary": {
    "total_claims": 50,
    "by_evidence_type": {
      "experiment": 25,
      "related_work": 10,
      "theoretical": 3,
      "code": 8
    }
  },
  "results": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "source": "abstract",
      "quote": "exact text",
      "claim": "restatement",
      "evidence_type": ["experiment"]
    }
  ]
}

Coverage Rule

Err on the side of over-extraction — downstream skills will filter. A missed claim cannot be verified later. Aim for 60+ claims on a typical 10-page paper.

Tips

• Look for "we show", "we propose", "we achieve", "we demonstrate", "outperforms", "state-of-the-art", "first", "novel"
• Claims can appear anywhere — abstract, method, conclusion, captions, appendix
• Every number in the abstract should appear as a claim and be cross-referenced against the tables
• Passive voice often hides claims: "performance is improved by 3%" → who improved it? If the authors, it's a claim
• Qualifiers matter: "slightly better" vs "significantly better" vs "better" — extract the qualifier as part of the claim
• Figures are a rich source of implicit claims: trend lines, convergence curves, qualitative examples all assert something
• Do NOT flag writing issues (grammar, typos) — that is read-txt's job
• Ignore PDF parsing artifacts in quotes: broken hyphens (ex-\nploratory), joined words from line breaks (turnlevel), LaTeX math ($14.9 \%$). Clean up the quote to match the actual paper text when extracting.