Academic Proofreading

Report-only skill. Never edit source files — produce PROOFREAD-REPORT.md only.

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

Locate files: Find all .tex files in the project (and .log files for LaTeX diagnostics)
Read the document: Read all .tex source files in order
Run 7 check categories (below)
Produce report: Write YYYY-MM-DD_PROOFREAD-REPORT.md in reviews/proofread/ under the project directory (create the directory if it does not exist). Do NOT overwrite previous reports — each review is dated.

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)

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/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.

Severity Levels

Level	Definition	Example
Critical	Will be noticed by reviewers, may cause rejection	Broken references, major grammar errors, inconsistent core notation
Major	Noticeable quality issue	Inconsistent citation style, tone issues, overfull hbox > 10pt
Minor	Polish issue	Occasional British/American mix, minor spacing

Quality Scoring

Apply numeric quality scoring using the shared framework and skill-specific rubric:

Framework: ../shared/quality-scoring.md — severity tiers, thresholds, verdict rules
Rubric: 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.

Report Format

# 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 |
| **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:

The main session reads the document and constructs the proofreading prompt
The prompt is sent to 3 different models via cli-council (or llm-council for API mode)
Each model independently runs the 7 check categories
Cross-review identifies agreements and disputes
Chairman synthesis produces a single PROOFREAD-REPORT.md with council notes

Invocation (CLI backend — free with existing subscriptions):

cd packages/cli-council
uv run python -m cli_council \
    --prompt-file /tmp/proofread-prompt.txt \
    --context-file /tmp/paper-content.txt \
    --output-md /tmp/proofread-council.md \
    --chairman claude \
    --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.

Cross-References

/bib-validate — For thorough bibliography cross-referencing
/latex-autofix — 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