review-paper

name: review-paper description: Paper review and polish checklist for academic papers before submission. Walks through a 13-item universal checklist (notation, proofs, assumptions, abstract, introduction, style, etc.), then adds project-specific items interactively. Distributes tasks between Claude and the user, then Claude executes its assigned items. Use when reviewing, polishing, or doing a final pass on a paper before submission. invocation: user

/review-paper — Paper Review & Polish

Walk through a structured review of an academic paper before submission. Produces a tracked checklist note and systematically works through each item.

Workflow

Phase 1: Context Discovery

Before asking questions, gather project context:

1. Read the project's CLAUDE.md to understand: paper topic, structure, LaTeX setup
2. Locate .tex files — identify the main file and any \input/\include structure
3. Scan the paper to note what it contains:
   • Proofs? (items 2, 3 apply)
   • Named assumptions like (A1)–(An)? (item 3 applies)
   • Core mathematical derivations? (item 4 applies)
   • Computational experiments? (item 5 applies)
   • Algorithm box / pseudocode? (item 10 applies)
   • Figures and tables? (item 11 applies)
4. Check for existing review notes in notes/

Phase 2: Universal Checklist

Generate notes/review_checklist_YYYYMMDD.md with applicable items from references/checklist-items.md.

Format:

# Review Checklist — YYYY-MM-DD

## Items

1. **Notation & LaTeX style consistency**
2. **Proof review**
3. **Assumptions audit**
...

## Status

- [ ] 1. Notation & LaTeX style
- [ ] 2. Proof review
...

Skip items marked "(if any)" that don't apply based on Phase 1 findings. Renumber accordingly.

Present the checklist to the user for confirmation.

Phase 3: Project-Specific Items

Ask: "Any project-specific review tasks to add?"

Examples of what the user might add:

• "Verify (A1)–(A5) are all cited correctly"
• "Check that Theorem 4.1 proof handles the boundary case"
• "Ensure the Signal Recovery discussion isn't redundant across sections"

Append these as numbered items after the universal ones.

Phase 4: Task Distribution

Go through each item with the user using AskUserQuestion. For each, propose one of:

Default assignments:

Present defaults and let user adjust. User may also reassign project-specific items.

Phase 5: Execute

Work through Claude's assigned items in checklist order:

1. Before each item: Mark it in_progress in the checklist note
2. During: Read the relevant .tex files, grep for patterns, report findings
3. After: Update the checklist note with findings and mark [x] with a brief status summary
4. For "Claude flags" items: List findings, then pause for user to confirm fixes

For items assigned to the user, skip them and note "Assigned to user" in the status.

After completing all Claude items, print a summary of remaining user tasks.

Execution Guidelines Per Item

1. Notation & LaTeX style

• Grep for \text{ (should be \operatorname or \mathrm for operators)
• Grep for \( and \) (should use $...$)
• Grep for \rightarrow (should be \to)
• Grep for inconsistent bold/mathbb patterns
• Check theorem environment counters in preamble

5. Computational verification mention

• Search for "finite difference", "numerical verification", "gradient check" or similar
• If absent, flag the gap

11. Figure/table captions

• List all \caption{...} and check self-containedness
• Cross-reference all \ref{fig: and \ref{tab: with actual labels
• Flag any orphan figures/tables

12. Bibliography cleanup

• Extract all \cite{...} keys from .tex files
• Compare against .bib file entries
• Report: undefined references, orphan bib entries, duplicate authors

13. Style pass

• Grep for each banned word from the checklist
• Grep for weak openings ("It is ", "There are ")
• Grep for wordy phrases from the replacement table
• Report with line numbers and suggested replacements

Reference Files

• references/checklist-items.md — Full universal checklist with detailed sub-items