agentleFS
flonatflonat/flonat-research/skills/proofread/SKILL.md

proofread

Skill150 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub

Proofread a LaTeX academic paper across eleven language, notation, citation, and consistency categories. Use when the requested task is bounded proofreading rather than substantive rewriting, clarity stress-testing, or venue compliance.

26 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use humanize, deploy and 2 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • eherrerosjSkill

    humanize

    Remove signs of AI-generated writing from text. Use when editing or reviewing text to make it sound more natural and human-written. Based on Wikipedia's comprehensive 'Signs of AI writing' guide. Detects and fixes patterns including: inflated symbolism, promotional language, superficial -ing analyses, vague attributions, em dash overuse, rule of three, AI vocabulary words, negative parallelisms, and excessive conjunctive phrases. Triggers on: 'humanize', 'make this sound human', 'remove AI writing', 'de-AI', 'sound more natural', 'less robotic', 'too AI-sounding', or when reviewing text that reads like AI output.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • VercelSkill

    deploy

    Deploy applications to Vercel. Use when the user says "deploy", "deploy to Vercel", "push to production", "deploy my app", or "go live".

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    verify

    End-to-end app testing pipeline for browser-based web apps on cloud browsers via Azure Playwright Workspaces: verify the live app, author tests for working flows, heal failing tests, then re-run with video and produce one consolidated report. Three phases (app verification, test authoring, test healing) plus a scoped final sanity run; each phase emits a sub-report. Use when asked to "verify my app", "make sure my app works and has good test coverage", "do a full QA pass", "add tests where I'm missing coverage", "fix failing tests and add new ones", "smoke test before deploy", "QA my deployment", or any combined verify-and-test ask. Requires Azure CLI (`az login`) and a Playwright Workspace resource ID — bootstraps configs on first invocation. Browser-based web apps with Playwright only — not for unit/API tests, native mobile/desktop, load/perf, or full accessibility audits.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    review

    Fixture review skill.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 20 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Report-only skill: Never edit source files — produce reviews/<scope>/proofread/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md only (where <scope> is the paper slug, …

    line 11
  2. Very specific:

    Idempotency: if today's file exists, append a same-day descriptor ({date}-revision.md, {date}-r2.md, {date}-pre-submission.md) — never …

    line 20
  3. Very specific:

    Index update: if reviews/INDEX.md exists, write a one-line entry under "Latest per source" pointing at the new file.

    line 21
  4. Distinctive:

    Before sending a draft to supervisors

    line 27
  5. Distinctive:

    Before submission to a journal/conference

    line 28
  6. Distinctive:

    After major revisions to check consistency

    line 29
  7. Distinctive:

    When you want a fresh-eyes check on writing quality

    line 30
  8. Very specific:

    Read the document: Read all .tex source files in order

    line 41
  9. Very specific:

    Produce report: Write reviews/<scope>/proofread/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md under the project directory (where <scope> is the paper slug, e.g., …

    line 43
  10. Distinctive:

    Start at 100, deduct per issue found, apply verdict.

    line 73
  11. Distinctive:

    When the same issue appears 3+ times, group it as a single pattern finding instead of listing each instance separately.

    line 77
  12. Very specific:

    After writing the proofread report, append a row to the project's REVIEW-STATE.md:

    line 155

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 20 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Academic Proofreading

Report-only skill. Never edit source files — produce reviews/<scope>/proofread/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md only (where <scope> is the paper slug, e.g. paper-jtp).

Output Path

Per rules/review-artefact-routing.md (auto-loads in research projects (path-scoped to paper-*/ and paper/)):

  • Source slug: proofread
  • Write reports to: reviews/<scope>/proofread/YYYY-MM-DD.md inside the project, where <scope> is the paper slug (e.g., paper-jtp). Path is relative to the research project root, not the Task-Management repo.
  • Never at project root (./CRITIC-REPORT.md-style filenames are forbidden — pre-rule layout).
  • Idempotency: if today's file exists, append a same-day descriptor ({date}-revision.md, {date}-r2.md, {date}-pre-submission.md) — never overwrite.
  • Index update: if reviews/INDEX.md exists, write a one-line entry under "Latest per source" pointing at the new file. Otherwise review-recap will rebuild the index next time it runs.
  • Infrastructure repos (Task-Management, atlas-workspace, etc.): this section does not apply — the path-scoped rule won't load there.

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 an installed bibliography validator or direct cite-key cross-referencing (this skill flags only obvious citation-format issues)

Workflow

  1. Locate files: Find all .tex files in the project (and .log files for LaTeX diagnostics)
  2. Read the document: Read all .tex source files in order
  3. Run 11 check categories (below)
  4. Produce report: Write reviews/<scope>/proofread/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md under the project directory (where <scope> is the paper slug, e.g., paper-jtp; create the directory if it does not exist: mkdir -p reviews/<scope>/proofread/). Do NOT overwrite previous reports — each review is timestamped to the minute. Canonical convention: the installed shared resource shared/review-state-schema.md.

Check Categories

Eleven categories, run in order. Full catalogue — every bullet, threshold, and worked example — in references/check-categories.md:

#Category#Category
1Grammar & Spelling7TikZ Diagram Review
2Notation Consistency8Numeric Text↔Table Cross-Check
3Citation Format9Causal Language Audit
4Academic Tone10Equation Completeness
5LaTeX-Specific Issues11aAnonymity (double-blind venues only)
6Citation Voice Balance11Preprint Staleness

Severity Levels

LevelDefinitionExample
CriticalWill be noticed by reviewers, may cause rejectionBroken references, major grammar errors, inconsistent core notation, text↔table number mismatch, causal overclaiming with weak design
MajorNoticeable quality issueInconsistent citation style, tone issues, overfull hbox > 10pt, undefined variable in equation, stale preprint, ambiguous "significant"
MinorPolish issueOccasional British/American mix, minor spacing, missing equation number for referenced equation

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.

Recurring Pattern Grouping

When the same issue appears 3+ times, group it as a single pattern finding instead of listing each instance separately. This prevents reports bloated with 50 individual items when the real message is "you have 3 recurring problems."

Format:

### M3: Hedge phrase "interestingly" (8 instances)
- **Category:** Academic tone
- **Locations:** lines 42, 67, 103, 145, 189, 203, 267, 301
- **Problem:** Filler hedge phrase adds no content
- **Fix:** Delete all 8 instances

One deduction for the pattern (not 8 separate deductions). Escalation still applies: 5+ instances of the same minor issue → one Major deduction.

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 |
| Numeric cross-check | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Causal language | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Equation completeness | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Preprint staleness | 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 in council mode — 3 LLM providers independently run the 7 check categories, cross-review, and a chairman synthesises one PROOFREAD-REPORT.md. Trigger: "council proofread" / "thorough proofread". Full orchestration + invocation: ../shared/council-protocol.md.

Value: Diminishing returns for pure formatting — most valuable combined with citation-voice-balance and notation-consistency checks, where different models have genuinely different pattern recognition.

Log to REVIEW-STATE.md (final step)

After writing the proofread report, append a row to the project's REVIEW-STATE.md:

bash <skills-root>/_shared/review-state-log.sh \
  --check proofread \
  --paper "<paper-{venue} dir>" \
  --verdict "<PASS|ISSUES FOUND>" \
  --open-issues "<total-issues-across-categories>/<total-issues-across-categories>" \
  --report "reviews/<scope>/proofread/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md" \
  --notes "<one-line: e.g. '3 critical, 12 minor; mostly notation §3'>" \
  [--trigger "pre-submission-report|review-cluster"]
  • Verdict: PASS if no issues found across any category; ISSUES FOUND otherwise.
  • Open issues: total count across all 7 (or 11) check categories at run time.
  • Trigger: pass orchestrator name only if invoked via pre-submission-report or review-cluster. Otherwise omit.

Schema: the installed shared resource shared/review-state-schema.md.

Source format. Paper prose stays one line per paragraph; normalize edited files with .scripts/latex_paragraph_format.py --apply and recompile. Canonical: rules/latex-source-format.md.

Cross-References

  • Installed bibliography validator — For thorough bibliography cross-referencing and metadata checks
  • latex — 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

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.