What problem does it solve? Reviewing a scholarly study against its primary sources is error-prone: claims may be unsupported, syntheses may be wrongly deleted, and revisions can introduce inconsistencies across sections, glossaries, and companion materials. This Skill guides a rigorous editorial review that distinguishes explicit statements from connected synthesis, illustrations, and disputed extensions. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Source-grounded claim assessment: Classifies claims by evidential kind and checks them against cited primary passages, editions, and page conventions. - Doctrine-preserving revision: Repairs English prose, terminology, and translation choices without altering the argument's substance. - Whole-argument consistency checks: Traces changes through headings, tables, appendices, glossaries, companion slides, and speaker notes after revision. - Use Case: A reviewer disputes a study's enumeration of values and its mapping to four dimensions; the Skill walks through verifying the enumeration in the primary text, correcting term pairings, and preserving the supported relationship framework. ## Quick Start Review the current draft of my study against its cited primary sources and revise it where claims lack support.
