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 $validate-bib for bibliography cross-referencing (though this skill flags 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 7 check categories (below)
4. Produce report: Write PROOFREAD-REPORT.md in a proofread/ subfolder of the project directory (create it if it does not exist)

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

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]

Cross-References

• $validate-bib — For thorough bibliography cross-referencing
• Referee 2 agent — For formal code + paper auditing
• $devils-advocate — For argument quality and logical scrutiny