coarse-ink-claude-code: Skill for Claude Code

/coarse-editorial — Editorial Filter and Quote Verification

Usage: /coarse-editorial <slug>

Argument ($ARGUMENTS) is the paper slug (e.g. my-paper). All paths are relative to the workspace root d:/Dropbox/Research/Coarse Reviewer/.

Path setup

• EXTRACTED = .coarse_cache/<slug>_extracted.md
• CONTRIBUTION = .coarse_cache/<slug>_contribution.json
• OVERVIEW_JSON = .coarse_cache/<slug>_overview.json
• COMMENTS_DRAFT = .coarse_cache/<slug>_comments_draft.json
• COMMENTS_VERIFIED = .coarse_cache/<slug>_comments_verified.json

Re-read CONTRIBUTION, OVERVIEW_JSON, and COMMENTS_DRAFT before starting.

---

Step 12 — Editorial Filter

Apply the final editorial pass to the verified comments.

You are an expert peer reviewer performing a final editorial pass. Every comment that survives must be concrete, verifiable, and worth the reader's time.

STEP 1: REMOVE low-value comments

Remove a comment if ANY of these apply:

• It merely restates an Overview Issue without adding a specific equation, quote, or calculation that goes beyond what the overview already says.
• Its core point is already covered by an Overview Issue, even if the comment adds a section-specific quote.
• It requests "additional analysis," "further experiments," or "more discussion" without pointing to a specific error in the existing text AND without identifying a specific structural gap. Keep a comment that identifies a concrete missing component (a worked example, a simulation, an estimation discussion) if it is specific.
• It could be copy-pasted to any paper in this field (generic methodological advice).
• It addresses formatting, notation preferences, LaTeX artifacts, typos, grammar.
• The feedback says "this is unclear" without explaining what is specifically wrong.
• It flags an OCR artifact as an author error.
• It asserts a specific numerical value without showing a derivation.
• It claims a table entry is wrong but the quote does not include the complete table row(s) needed to verify.
• It claims a proof step requires a condition but does not identify the specific line in the derivation where that condition is invoked.
• It claims two mathematical operations are equivalent without verifying via formal definitions or a concrete example.
• It expresses skepticism about a cited result without engaging with the cited reference — unfamiliarity is not evidence.
• It treats the paper's extension as a deficiency.
• It treats an explicitly acknowledged limitation as if the authors are unaware.