Audit Section Skill

Comprehensive single-section audit combining style checking, factual verification, citation auditing, and logical flow analysis.

Examples

• /audit-section introduction -- deep audit of the introduction
• /audit-section data -- audit the data section
• /audit-section results -- audit the results section

Workflow

Step 1: Load Context

1. Read .claude/rules/academic-writing.md for style rules
2. Read .claude/rules/banned-words.md for hard/soft bans
3. Read .claude/rules/grammar-punctuation.md for grammar conventions
4. Read .claude/rules/latex-citations.md for citation protocol
5. If the project has guidance/paper-context.md, read it for correct claims and numbers
6. Read the target section from main.tex (use /extract-section)

Step 2: Style Audit

Run the full /style-check analysis:

• Banned words, throat-clearing, passive voice, superlatives, vague claims, self-praise
• Structural AI tells: em-dashes, AI-marker words (per Kobak/Liang), naked "this", adverb openers, "Together, these results...", soft-ban counts
• Hedge words & previewing: somewhat/quite/very/arguably/perhaps (Nikolov); "as we show below"/"Recall from" (Cochrane); nominalizations (Williams)
• See banned-words.md and academic-writing.md for the full current lists

Step 3: Factual Accuracy

If the project has guidance/paper-context.md, cross-reference every quantitative claim:

• Do numerical claims match the paper's canonical values?
• Do table references match actual table content?
• Flag any inconsistency between text claims and tables/figures

If no paper-context file exists, flag claims that cannot be verified.

Step 4: Citation Audit

For each citation in the section:

• Verify key exists in .bib
• Check citation supports the claim being made (not just existence but relevance)
• Flag citations used out of context

Step 5: Logical Flow

• Does the section follow a logical progression?
• Are transitions between paragraphs smooth?
• Is there redundancy (same point made twice)?
• Does the opening paragraph set up what follows?
• Does the section deliver on its implicit promise?

Step 6: Economic Reasoning

• Are economic arguments sound?
• Are mechanisms explained correctly and consistently with the paper's framework?
• Do the results follow from the methodology described?

Output

SECTION AUDIT: [section name]
================================

STYLE ISSUES: N total (M critical, K suggestions)
[categorized list]

FACTUAL ACCURACY:
- [list of verified/flagged claims with specific numbers]

CITATION AUDIT:
- [status of each citation in section]

LOGICAL FLOW:
- [structural observations and suggestions]

ECONOMIC REASONING:
- [any issues with mechanism descriptions]

PRIORITY FIXES:
1. [highest priority issue]
2. [second priority]
3. [etc.]

SUGGESTED REWRITES:
[specific rewrite suggestions for the worst passages]