Coarse Editorial

/coarse-editorial — Editorial Filter and Quote Verification

Usage: /coarse-editorial

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.md
• CONTRIBUTION = .coarse_cache/_contribution.json
• OVERVIEW_JSON = .coarse_cache/_overview.json
• COMMENTS_DRAFT = .coarse_cache/_comments_draft.json
• COMMENTS_VERIFIED = .coarse_cache/_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.

STEP 2: CONTRADICTION CHECK

For each surviving comment, compare its core claim against the paper's abstract and stated contributions (from CONTRIBUTION). If a comment asserts a result has the opposite character of what the paper explicitly claims to prove (e.g., bounded vs. unbounded, identifiable vs. not identifiable), remove it unless it provides a complete, self-contained derivation disproving the paper's claim.

STEP 3: VERIFY against full paper text

For each surviving comment:

• If the comment claims something is "never defined" or "absent" — check

EXTRACTED to verify. If the item IS defined elsewhere, remove the comment.

• If the quote looks paraphrased or clearly hallucinated (not a verbatim substring

of the paper), flag for removal. A downstream programmatic step (Step 13) will fuzzy-match all quotes, but obvious hallucinations should be caught here.

STEP 4: QUALITY and SEVERITY assignment

For each surviving comment:

• severity: "critical" (concrete proof error, equation demonstrably wrong),

"major" (internal inconsistency, missing case, unsupported claim), "minor" (notation inconsistency, ambiguous definition, exposition issue)

• confidence: "high" (demonstrated with derivation), "medium" (believed but

not fully verified), "low" (uncertain)

• Remove comments with "low" confidence unless they identify a genuinely

important ambiguity.

STEP 5: NOTATION CAPPING

Keep at most 2-3 pure notation-level comments. A single structural issue is worth more than three notation fixes.

STEP 6: HUMANIZE

When revising feedback text:

• Vary sentence length and structure across comments.
• Replace AI vocabulary ("crucial", "comprehensive", "robust", "serves as").
• No repetitive openers.
• Have editorial opinions — say why something matters.

STEP 7: ORDER by importance

Order: critical first, then major, then minor. Within each level, high confidence before medium. Renumber from 1.

Keep as many comments as are warranted. Do not remove a comment with a specific verbatim quote and a concrete identified error solely to reduce count.

Write the final filtered list back to COMMENTS_VERIFIED using the Write tool (same JSON format as the draft).

A downstream programmatic step will verify quotes against the paper text — obvious hallucinations (quotes that clearly don't appear in the paper) should still be caught here, but exact fuzzy-matching happens in Step 13.

---

Step 13 — Quote Verification (Python)

Run:

python scripts/coarse_quote_verify.py COMMENTS_VERIFIED EXTRACTED COMMENTS_VERIFIED

This fuzzy-matches each quote against the extracted paper text, corrects near-matches, and drops comments whose quotes cannot be found. Read the output summary printed to stdout.

If the script drops ALL comments (empty output), skip verification and keep COMMENTS_VERIFIED as written — this is the fallback behaviour for edge cases where extraction produced non-standard formatting.

Re-read COMMENTS_VERIFIED with the Read tool and confirm the final count before proceeding.

---

Done. Next: /coarse-write

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.