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
- pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- NilsHellwig/acl-paper-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- obviousbread/docs-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- shuymn/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- dewil/claude-toolkittheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- dewil/ai-toolkittheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
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.
eherrerosjSkillhumanize
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
VercelSkilldeploy
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 AzureSkillverify
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
SentrySkillreview
Fixture review skill.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions26 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 26
- pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow★ 1.7ksame name
- maxwell2732/paper-replicate-agent-demo★ 134same name
- sonilo-ai/skills★ 117same name
- maxwell2732/my-submission-formatting-agent★ 106same name
- tance-mang/chinese-webnovel-skills★ 97same name
- JakobThumm/proofreading★ 38same name
- christopherkenny/skills★ 26same name
- AlessandroCaforio/Academic-Writing★ 17same name
- amondnet/yoonmoon★ 17same name
- dewil/ai-toolkit★ 9same name
16 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository89 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- docs/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- beamer-deckSkill
- bib-coverageSkill
- bib-filterSkill
- bib-parseSkill
- brief-compliance-checkSkill
- camera-readySkill
- causal-designSkill
- checkpointSkill
- code-archaeologySkill
- compile-knowledgeSkill
- computational-experimentsSkill
- cross-language-checkSkill
- data-analysisSkill
- devils-advocateSkill
- docs-consistencySkill
- docxSkill
- experiment-designSkill
- grill-meSkill
- handoffSkill
- ideasSkill
- init-project-courseSkill
- init-project-lightSkill
- init-project-orchestrationSkill
- init-projectSkill
- insights-deckSkill
- interview-meSkill
- knowledge-lintSkill
- latex-diffSkill
- latex-health-checkSkill
- latex-polishSkill
- latex-postersSkill
- latex-scaffoldSkill
- latexSkill
- latex-templateSkill
- lean-checkSkill
- math-proofSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- method-auditSkill
- multi-perspectiveSkill
- numerical-checkSkill
- pdfSkill
- pipeline-manifestSkill
- playwright-cliSkill
- postmortemSkill
- pre-commit-auditSkill
- pre-submission-reportSkill
- project-deckSkill
- project-safetySkill
- proof-readabilitySkill
- python-envSkill
- quarto-deckSkill
- reorgSkill
- replication-auditSkill
- replication-packageSkill
- retarget-journalSkill
- review-clusterSkill
- review-responseSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
- Very specific: line 11
Report-only skill: Never edit source files — produce reviews/<scope>/proofread/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md only (where <scope> is the paper slug, …
- Very specific: line 20
Idempotency: if today's file exists, append a same-day descriptor ({date}-revision.md, {date}-r2.md, {date}-pre-submission.md) — never …
- Very specific: line 21
Index update: if reviews/INDEX.md exists, write a one-line entry under "Latest per source" pointing at the new file.
- Distinctive: line 27
Before sending a draft to supervisors
- Distinctive: line 28
Before submission to a journal/conference
- Distinctive: line 29
After major revisions to check consistency
- Distinctive: line 30
When you want a fresh-eyes check on writing quality
- Very specific: line 41
Read the document: Read all .tex source files in order
- Very specific: line 43
Produce report: Write reviews/<scope>/proofread/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.md under the project directory (where <scope> is the paper slug, e.g., …
- Distinctive: line 73
Start at 100, deduct per issue found, apply verdict.
- Distinctive: line 77
When the same issue appears 3+ times, group it as a single pattern finding instead of listing each instance separately.
- Very specific: line 155
After writing the proofread report, append a row to the project's REVIEW-STATE.md:
“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.
Files
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.mdinside 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.mdexists, write a one-line entry under "Latest per source" pointing at the new file. Otherwisereview-recapwill 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-advocatefor logical scrutiny - Citation completeness — use an installed bibliography validator or direct cite-key cross-referencing (this skill flags only obvious citation-format issues)
Workflow
- Locate files: Find all
.texfiles in the project (and.logfiles for LaTeX diagnostics) - Read the document: Read all
.texsource files in order - Run 11 check categories (below)
- Produce report: Write
reviews/<scope>/proofread/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.mdunder 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 resourceshared/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 |
| 1 | Grammar & Spelling | 7 | TikZ Diagram Review |
| 2 | Notation Consistency | 8 | Numeric Text↔Table Cross-Check |
| 3 | Citation Format | 9 | Causal Language Audit |
| 4 | Academic Tone | 10 | Equation Completeness |
| 5 | LaTeX-Specific Issues | 11a | Anonymity (double-blind venues only) |
| 6 | Citation Voice Balance | 11 | Preprint Staleness |
Severity Levels
| Level | Definition | Example |
| Critical | Will be noticed by reviewers, may cause rejection | Broken references, major grammar errors, inconsistent core notation, text↔table number mismatch, causal overclaiming with weak design |
| Major | Noticeable quality issue | Inconsistent citation style, tone issues, overfull hbox > 10pt, undefined variable in equation, stale preprint, ambiguous "significant" |
| Minor | Polish issue | Occasional 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 instancesOne 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-reportorreview-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
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
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.

