a-green-hand-jack/paper-draft-consistency-editor

Paper Draft Consistency Editor

Check and fix whether a paper draft is internally coherent. This skill is an editor pass, not a reviewer simulation and not a first-draft writer. It makes the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, figures, tables, captions, related work, limitations, and conclusion agree with the paper's active claims and evidence.

Use this skill for:

• title/abstract/intro/conclusion consistency
• contribution bullet to experiment mapping
• claim strength drift across sections
• terminology, method name, dataset name, baseline name, metric name, and notation consistency
• writing-layer consistency: layout, fluency, argument, technical consistency, style consistency, venue adaptation, and polish edits stay within their intended permissions
• figure/table/caption/main-text alignment
• result prose that no longer matches updated numbers
• unresolved PROVISIONAL-RESULT or PR-### placeholders
• checking whether the draft follows paper/.agent/writing-contract.md
• producing a consistency report or directly editing narrow inconsistencies

Do not use this skill to decide the paper's positioning from scratch. Use paper-positioning-planner for that. Do not use it to write major new prose. Use paper-writing-memory-manager to record stale locations, dependency conflicts, and open writing threads found during consistency checks. Use paper-writing-assistant after consistency issues are identified. Do not simulate hostile reviewers; use paper-reviewer-simulator for acceptance-risk critique.

Skill Directory Layout

<installed-skill-dir>/
├── SKILL.md
├── references/
│   ├── consistency-rules.md
│   └── edit-protocol.md
└── templates/
    └── consistency-report.md

Progressive Loading

• Always read references/consistency-rules.md.
• Read paper-writing-assistant/references/paper-quality-heuristics.md when auditing broad paper quality, readability, evidence integrity, or whether the draft hides unfair comparisons.
• Read references/edit-protocol.md before editing paper source.
• Read paper-writing-assistant/references/edit-whitelist-contract.md when declaring a controlled rewrite pass with frozen and allowed operation types.
• Use templates/consistency-report.md for substantial reports.
• Read paper/.agent/writing-contract.md when present.
• Read paper/.agent/writing-memory/, paper/.agent/writing-style.md, paper/.agent/writing-style-lessons.md, paper/.agent/notation-contract.md, paper/.agent/paper-evidence-board.md, paper/.agent/provisional-results.md, and root memory/claim-board.md / memory/evidence-board.md when present.
• Read figure/table maps or visual-style files when checking figures and tables.

Core Principles

• Preserve the selected paper story. Do not silently reposition the paper.
• Distinguish inconsistency from scientific weakness. The goal is coherence, not acceptance-risk scoring.
• Prefer the current writing contract and evidence board over local inference.
• Fix low-risk naming, reference, and wording drift directly when requested.
• For claim or evidence drift, report the issue and propose the smallest safe edit.
• Do not strengthen claims to resolve inconsistencies. Weaken, narrow, or route to missing evidence instead.
• Preserve LaTeX commands, labels, citations, math, macros, comments, and formatting unless the edit directly concerns them.

Step 1 - Locate Draft and Contract

Find:

• paper root: paper/, current directory, or user-provided path
• paper/.agent/writing-contract.md or .agent/writing-contract.md
• paper/.agent/paper-evidence-board.md
• paper/.agent/provisional-results.md
• source files: main.tex, paper.tex, sections/*.tex, appendix, figure wrappers, table files
• root memory: memory/claim-board.md, memory/evidence-board.md, memory/action-board.md

If no writing contract exists, still run the consistency pass from the draft, but recommend paper-writing-contract-planner.

Step 2 - Choose Mode and Scope

Modes:

• audit: produce a report with issues and proposed fixes
• edit: make narrow source edits for clear inconsistencies
• report: save a report under paper/.agent/draft-consistency-report.md

Scopes:

• full: all checks
• claims: title/abstract/intro/result/conclusion claim alignment
• terms: names, notation, metrics, datasets, baselines
• figures: figures, captions, callouts, visual jobs
• results: tables, numbers, result prose, provisional placeholders

Default to audit and full unless the user asks for direct edits.

Step 3 - Build the Draft Story Map

Extract a compact map:

## Draft Story Map
- Title promise:
- Abstract claims:
- Intro thesis:
- Contribution bullets:
- Method claims:
- Experiment claims:
- Figure/table takeaways:
- Limitation scope:
- Conclusion claims:
- Active contract:

Mark claim IDs such as CLM-### when available. If IDs are missing, use local labels like CLM-DRAFT-001.

Step 4 - Run Consistency Checks

Read references/consistency-rules.md.

Check:

• Does the title promise match the abstract and intro thesis?
• Is the dominant contribution type clear: insight, performance, or capability?
• Do abstract results appear in the experiments/results section?
• Do intro contribution bullets map to experiments, figures, tables, theorem, citation, or artifact evidence?
• Are claim strengths consistent across abstract, intro, results, conclusion, and limitations?
• Do method names, dataset names, baseline names, metric names, symbols, and notation stay consistent?
• Are figure/table captions aligned with main-text interpretation?
• Are result numbers and directions consistent across tables, captions, and prose?
• Are provisional placeholders still present?
• Does related work define the same novelty boundary as intro contributions?
• Do limitations narrow exactly the right claims?
• Do layout, fluency, or polish edits accidentally change claim strength, notation, evidence scope, or venue positioning?
• Do transitions, causal language, and contrast words reflect real argument logic rather than masking weak structure?
• Are comparison-affecting compute, data, tuning, hardware, evaluation, and selection rules visible where claims need them?
• Do argument or venue-adaptation edits update the writing contract or mark dependent sections stale?
• Do style-consistency edits follow writing-style.md or record a new lesson/preference?

Classify each issue:

• blocking: could make the draft misleading or unsupported
• major: materially confuses the paper story
• minor: naming, wording, or local flow inconsistency
• style: polish issue that does not affect meaning

Step 5 - Propose or Apply Edits

Read references/edit-protocol.md.

For each issue, choose:

• direct-edit: safe local wording/name/reference fix
• rewrite-request: needs paper-writing-assistant
• contract-update: needs paper-writing-contract-planner
• evidence-update: needs paper-evidence-board
• writing-memory-update: needs paper-writing-memory-manager to record dependency conflicts, stale locations, or closed threads — always write: sections audited, issues resolved, issues left open, and any protected invariants identified during this pass
• style-memory-update: needs paper-writing-memory-manager to record a writing-layer lesson, preference, project contract, protected invariant, or notation rule
• experiment-action: needs experiment-design-planner
• diagnosis: needs result-diagnosis
• leave-note: intentional inconsistency or unresolved decision

When editing:

• edit the smallest relevant TeX or Markdown file
• keep citations, labels, refs, macros, and math intact
• avoid broad paragraph rewrites unless explicitly requested
• do not replace provisional placeholders with unverified final prose

Step 6 - Produce Report

Use templates/consistency-report.md for substantial audits.

If saving and no path is specified, use:

paper/.agent/draft-consistency-report.md

Report:

• summary of draft story
• issue table sorted by severity
• direct edits made, if any
• unresolved consistency risks
• required contract/evidence/writing follow-ups
• provisional placeholders found

Final Sanity Check

Before finalizing:

• no claim was strengthened without evidence
• source edits are narrow and traceable
• unresolved issues are routed to the right skill
• provisional placeholders are listed
• the final response distinguishes edits made from recommendations