Check Consistency Skill

Fast, focused scan for cross-section inconsistencies in main.tex. Lighter than /full-paper-audit -- designed for iterative use during editing.

Examples

• /check-consistency -- full scan of main.tex
• /check-consistency numbers -- only check quantitative claims
• /check-consistency terminology -- only check terminology consistency

Workflow

Step 1: Load Reference Values

Read guidance/paper-context.md to get canonical values (if it exists):

• Key quantitative results and their canonical magnitudes
• Sample description (date range, number of observations, variable counts)
• Any other numbers that appear in multiple sections

If no paper-context file exists, the skill still works by cross-referencing sections against each other (without a canonical reference).

Step 2: Quantitative Consistency

Grep main.tex for all quantitative claims and cross-reference:

• Percentages and basis points mentioning specific variables or factors
• Sample period mentions (start date, end date, number of periods)
• Counts (variables, observations, subsamples, etc.)
• Any number that appears in more than one section

Flag: mismatches between text claims and canonical values (if available), or between sections.

Step 3: Terminology Consistency

If guidance/paper-context.md defines a terminology table, grep across all sections for violations.

Also check for within-paper drift regardless of paper-context:

• Same concept called different names in different sections
• Inconsistent abbreviation introduction (defined in one section, used without definition in another)
• Check against .claude/rules/banned-words.md for hard-banned terms

Step 4: Cross-Reference Integrity

1. Extract all \ref{...} and \eqref{...} targets
2. Extract all \label{...} definitions
3. Flag any \ref or \eqref that points to a non-existent label
4. Flag any \ref used where \eqref should be (equation references)
5. Check that all tables and figures are cited at least once in the text

Step 5: Section Cross-References

Check that claims about other sections are accurate:

• "As shown in Section X" -- does Section X actually show this?
• "Table Y reports" -- does Table Y match the claim?
• "See Appendix Z" -- does the appendix contain the referenced content?

Step 5b: Caption Consistency

Run /audit-captions. Include CRITICAL and IMPORTANT findings in the output.

Step 6: Output

CONSISTENCY CHECK
=================

QUANTITATIVE MISMATCHES: [N found]
- Line X: claims "[value]" but canonical value is "[value]" for [variable]
- Line Y: says "[count]" but paper-context.md says "[count]"
(or: "No paper-context.md — cross-section comparison only")

TERMINOLOGY VIOLATIONS: [N found]
- Line X: "[deprecated term]" (should be "[correct term]")
- Line Y: "[term A]" in this section vs "[term B]" in [other section]

REFERENCE INTEGRITY: [N issues]
- Line X: \ref{eq:decomp} should be \eqref{eq:decomp}
- Line Y: \ref{fig:missing} -- label not found

CROSS-SECTION CONSISTENCY: [N issues]
- Line X claims "Table 3 shows..." but Table 3 actually shows...

SUMMARY:
- Critical issues: N
- Warnings: M
- All clear: [list of checks that passed]