Install
$ agentstack add skill-felipe-so-coarse-ink-claude-code-coarse-classify ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
/coarse-classify — Classify, Calibrate, Contribute, Literature
Usage: /coarse-classify
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/_extracted.mdSECTIONS_JSON=.coarse_cache/_sections.jsonCLASSIFICATION=.coarse_cache/_classification.jsonCALIBRATION=.coarse_cache/_calibration.jsonCONTRIBUTION=.coarse_cache/_contribution.jsonLITERATURE=.coarse_cache/_literature.txt
Read SECTIONS_JSON and the first 2000 chars of EXTRACTED before starting.
Step 3 — Classify
Determine:
- title: exact paper title from the first page
- domain: e.g.
social_sciences/economics,computer_science/machine_learning,
statistics/causal_inference, natural_sciences/biology
- taxonomy: e.g.
academic/research_paper,academic/review_paper,
academic/working_paper
- abstract: the paper's abstract text
- math_sections: list of section indices (0-based) whose
math_contentshould
be true. A section needs math verification if it contains ANY of: proofs (formal or informal), theorem/lemma/proposition/corollary statements with arguments, formal definitions or assumptions, algebraic manipulations, estimator definitions, asymptotic expressions.
Save to CLASSIFICATION using the Write tool:
{
"title": "...",
"domain": "...",
"taxonomy": "...",
"abstract": "...",
"math_sections": [0, 2, 4]
}
Step 4 — Domain Calibration
Using the paper's title, domain, abstract, and section list, produce a domain-specific review calibration.
You are an expert academic reviewer. For each field below, provide 3-5 concise items tailored to this paper's specific domain and methodology:
- methodology_concerns: The key methodological concerns for this type of paper
- assumptionredflags: Assumptions that commonly fail in this domain
- whatnotto_check: What is irrelevant for this paper type
- evaluation_standards: What a top-tier journal in this field expects
Save to CALIBRATION using the Write tool:
{
"methodology_concerns": ["...", "..."],
"assumption_red_flags": ["...", "..."],
"what_not_to_check": ["...", "..."],
"evaluation_standards": ["...", "..."]
}
Step 5 — Contribution Extraction
Read the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections from EXTRACTED.
You are an expert academic reader. Extract the paper's stated contributions, key mathematical objects, and author defenses. Your task is READING COMPREHENSION — report what the paper SAYS, not your assessment of it.
- main_claims: Quote or closely paraphrase each contribution the paper
explicitly states. Include the specific mathematical result, not generic descriptions.
- key_objects: The central mathematical objects/quantities and what the paper
claims about each.
- stated_limitations: Any limitations the authors explicitly acknowledge.
- author_defenses: Objections the authors anticipate and address, including
the section/remark where the defense appears.
- methodology_type: The paper's approach in one sentence.
Save to CONTRIBUTION using the Write tool:
{
"main_claims": ["...", "..."],
"key_objects": ["...", "..."],
"stated_limitations": ["...", "..."],
"author_defenses": ["...", "..."],
"methodology_type": "..."
}
This is a hard constraint for all later steps. Any review comment that contradicts the stated claims without a concrete counterexample must be dropped.
Step 6 — Literature Context (Optional)
If WebSearch is available, search for 3-5 closely related papers:
- Query:
"[paper title]" related work - Query:
[core method] [domain] [year range]
Format the results as a numbered list:
1. **Title** (Authors, Year) — brief relevance note
Save to LITERATURE using the Write tool (plain text, numbered list). If no results found, write an empty file. This file is read by the overview and section review steps.
Done. Next: /coarse-overview
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: Felipe-SO
- Source: Felipe-SO/coarse-ink-claude-code
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.