---
name: audit-section
description: Deep audit of a single section -- style, factual accuracy, citations, logical flow
user_invocable: true
---

# Audit Section Skill

Comprehensive single-section audit combining style checking, factual verification, citation auditing, and logical flow analysis.

## Examples
- `/audit-section introduction` -- deep audit of the introduction
- `/audit-section data` -- audit the data section
- `/audit-section results` -- audit the results section

## Workflow

### Step 1: Load Context
1. Read `.claude/rules/academic-writing.md` for style rules
2. Read `.claude/rules/banned-words.md` for hard/soft bans
3. Read `.claude/rules/grammar-punctuation.md` for grammar conventions
4. Read `.claude/rules/latex-citations.md` for citation protocol
5. If the project has `guidance/paper-context.md`, read it for correct claims and numbers
6. Read the target section from `main.tex` (use `/extract-section`)

### Step 2: Style Audit
Run the full `/style-check` analysis:
- Banned words, throat-clearing, passive voice, superlatives, vague claims, self-praise
- Structural AI tells: em-dashes, AI-marker words (per Kobak/Liang), naked "this", adverb openers, "Together, these results...", soft-ban counts
- Hedge words & previewing: somewhat/quite/very/arguably/perhaps (Nikolov); "as we show below"/"Recall from" (Cochrane); nominalizations (Williams)
- See `banned-words.md` and `academic-writing.md` for the full current lists

### Step 3: Factual Accuracy
If the project has `guidance/paper-context.md`, cross-reference every quantitative claim:
- Do numerical claims match the paper's canonical values?
- Do table references match actual table content?
- Flag any inconsistency between text claims and tables/figures

If no paper-context file exists, flag claims that cannot be verified.

### Step 4: Citation Audit
For each citation in the section:
- Verify key exists in .bib
- Check citation supports the claim being made (not just existence but relevance)
- Flag citations used out of context

### Step 5: Logical Flow
- Does the section follow a logical progression?
- Are transitions between paragraphs smooth?
- Is there redundancy (same point made twice)?
- Does the opening paragraph set up what follows?
- Does the section deliver on its implicit promise?

### Step 6: Economic Reasoning
- Are economic arguments sound?
- Are mechanisms explained correctly and consistently with the paper's framework?
- Do the results follow from the methodology described?

## Output

```
SECTION AUDIT: [section name]
================================

STYLE ISSUES: N total (M critical, K suggestions)
[categorized list]

FACTUAL ACCURACY:
- [list of verified/flagged claims with specific numbers]

CITATION AUDIT:
- [status of each citation in section]

LOGICAL FLOW:
- [structural observations and suggestions]

ECONOMIC REASONING:
- [any issues with mechanism descriptions]

PRIORITY FIXES:
1. [highest priority issue]
2. [second priority]
3. [etc.]

SUGGESTED REWRITES:
[specific rewrite suggestions for the worst passages]
```