Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research proofread

Proofread the sewage-house-prices manuscript. Checks 6 categories — structure, claims-evidence alignment, identification fidelity, writing quality, grammar, and compilation. Produces a scored report without editing files. This skill should be used when asked to "proofread", "review the paper", "check the manuscript", or "quality check".

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/41-sticerd-eee-sewage-econometrics-check/skills/proofread" ~/.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-research-proofread-3f9d46 && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: skills/41-sticerd-eee-sewage-econometrics-check/skills/proofread/SKILL.md

source content

Proofread Manuscript

Run the proofreading protocol on the "Sewage in Our Waters" manuscript. Produces a report — does NOT edit source files.

Input:

$ARGUMENTS

— a

.tex

filename, section number (e.g.

), or

all

Project-Specific Context

File Locations

Manuscript sections:
```
docs/overleaf/*.tex
```
Main document:
```
docs/overleaf/_main.tex
```
Bibliography:
```
docs/overleaf/refs.bib
```
Generated tables:
```
output/tables/*.tex
```
(tabularray format)
Generated figures:
```
output/figures/
```
Quarto book:
```
book/*.qmd
```
(for cross-referencing analysis)
Analysis scripts:
```
scripts/R/09_analysis/
```
(for methodology verification)

Key Checks Specific to This Project

Spill count/hours metrics must match the 12/24-hour counting methodology
Radius distances (250m-10km) must be consistent across sections
LSOA vs MSOA fixed effects must be correctly stated
Upstream/downstream directionality must match river network logic
Dry spill definition must be consistent with rainfall threshold used

Workflow

Step 1: Identify Files

If
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
is a specific
```
.tex
```
file: review that file
If
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
is a section number (e.g.
```
01
```
): review
```
docs/overleaf/0X_*.tex
```
If
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
is
```
all
```
: review
```
_main.tex
```
and all section files in
```
docs/overleaf/
```
If
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
is a
```
.qmd
```
file: review as advisory (non-blocking)

Step 2: Run 6-Category Review

Category 1: Structure

Contribution clearly stated within first 2 pages of introduction
Standard economics paper sequence (intro → background → data → method → results → conclusion)
Smooth transitions between sections
Road map in introduction matches actual section ordering
Appendix sections properly referenced from main text

Category 2: Claims-Evidence Alignment

Every stated effect size matches a number in
```
output/tables/
```
Percentage impacts correctly computed from log coefficients
Sample sizes and time periods match data pipeline output
Radius distances in text match those in tables
"Significant" claims match actual p-values / confidence intervals

Category 3: Identification Fidelity

Hedonic specification matches what
```
scripts/R/09_analysis/02_hedonic/
```
actually estimates
Repeat sales approach correctly described per Palmquist (1982)
Long difference specification matches grid-level scripts
DiD/event study timing and treatment definitions consistent
Instrument (hydraulic capacity) described consistently with
```
04_hydraulics_instrument.tex
```
Dry spill identification matches rainfall threshold in data pipeline

Category 4: Writing Quality

No banned hedging phrases ("interestingly", "it is worth noting", "arguably", "it is important to note")
Notation consistent: LSOA, MSOA, EDM used correctly throughout
Variable names in text match variable names in specifications
No AI writing patterns (see humanizer skill for full checklist)
Tone matches existing author voice

Category 5: Grammar & Polish

Subject-verb agreement
Article usage (particular attention to UK vs US English conventions)
Tense consistency (present for methodology, past for results)
No orphaned text, repeated words, or copy-paste artifacts
Acronyms defined on first use

Category 6: Compilation & LaTeX

All
```
\input{}
```
files exist
All
```
\textcite{}
```
/
```
\parencite{}
```
keys exist in
```
refs.bib
```
All
```
\ref{}
```
targets have matching
```
\label{}
```
Table/figure floats properly placed
No overfull hbox warnings (check tabularray table widths)
KOMA-Script class options used correctly

Step 3: Scoring

Apply deductions on a 0-100 scale:

Issue	Deduction
Effect size doesn't match table output	-25
Identification strategy misrepresented	-20
Broken citations ( `\textcite` key missing)	-15
Broken cross-references ( `\ref` undefined)	-15
Radius/sample inconsistency across sections	-10
Overfull hbox > 10pt	-10 per
Hedging language	-5 per (max -15)
Notation inconsistency	-5
Overfull hbox 1-10pt	-1 per

Step 4: Format-Aware Severity

Context	Scoring
Paper manuscript ( `.tex` )	Blocking — issues must be fixed
Quarto book ( `.qmd` )	Advisory — reported but non-blocking

Step 5: Present Report

Save report to

output/log/proofread_report_[SECTION].md

and present summary:

## Proofread Report: [filename]
**Score:** XX / 100
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

### Issues by Category
| Category | Critical | Major | Minor |
|----------|----------|-------|-------|
| Structure | ... | ... | ... |
| Claims-Evidence | ... | ... | ... |
| Identification | ... | ... | ... |
| Writing Quality | ... | ... | ... |
| Grammar | ... | ... | ... |
| LaTeX | ... | ... | ... |

### Top 3 Critical Issues
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

### Escalation Flags
- Claims don't match output → verify against analysis scripts
- Strategy misrepresented → review identification approach
- Framing issues → flag to authors

Principles

Proofreader is a CRITIC, not a creator. Never write or revise — only report.
Be precise. Quote exact text, cite exact line numbers and file paths.
Cross-reference against actual output. Always verify numbers against
```
output/tables/
```
.
Proportional severity. A missing comma is Minor. Numbers that don't match regression output is Critical.
Format-aware. Paper
```
.tex
```
files are blocking; book
```
.qmd
```
files are advisory.