Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/5683d173b9f65467.
---
name: audit
description: Check thesis chapters for consistency before submission — contradictory numbers, terminology drift, and broken cross-references.
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
---
# /audit — Thesis Consistency Audit Skill
## Purpose
Scan all thesis chapters for internal data consistency issues: contradictory numbers, inconsistent terminology, broken cross-references, and arithmetic errors. This is a pre-submission quality check.
## Trigger Words
This skill activates on: `audit`, `consistency check`, `check numbers`, `/audit`.
## Workflow
1. **Scan all chapter files** in the `chapters/` directory using Glob. Read each file to extract quantitative claims, terminology, and cross-references.
2. **Check the following categories:**
**A. Numerical consistency**
- The same statistic (e.g., accuracy, sample size, p-value) cited in multiple chapters must have the same value.
- Percentages in a distribution must sum to 100% (with tolerance of +/-1% for rounding).
- Counts (e.g., "42 models") must match between chapters.
**B. Terminological consistency**
- The same concept must use the same term throughout. Flag cases where synonyms are used inconsistently (e.g., "structured review" vs "systematic review" for the same concept).
- Abbreviations must be defined on first use in each chapter.
**C. Cross-reference validity**
- References to other sections (e.g., "as discussed in Section 3.2") must point to sections that exist.
- References to tables and figures must match actual table/figure numbers.
- Forward references ("Chapter 6 will show...") must be fulfilled.
**D. Citation checks — disabled in this release (disclosed gap)**
The deterministic citation tiers previously run here are disabled: measured
against realistic thesis text they produced false high-severity "phantom
citation" findings on ordinary parentheticals, missed multi-word
institutional authors, and flagged the comma form that Cite Them Right
Harvard mandates. Until the checker meets a measured, disclosed
false-positive rate, do not run it and do not present citation
consistency as audited. Reference integrity is still covered by
`/verify-refs` (BibTeX records) and by the notes-file contract lint.
**E. Claim positioning (deterministic, runs before F — positioning is
not repairable after review; style is)**
```
python3 scripts/audit-claim-positioning.py --base-dir chapters --bib references.bib --json
```
(omit `--bib` when the project has no bibliography file). Report every
issue it returns: `unsourced-keyword` and `bare-novelty` as **High** — a
field's vocabulary in use without its literature, or a novelty claim in a
paragraph that shows no search — `uncited-method` and `dangling-entry` as
**Medium**. The tool checks that a source is *present* near a claim, never
that it is the right one, and it cannot tell whether a citing sentence
says what its source says; do not present its silence as either.
**F. Prose fingerprint (measurement only; skip when no baseline exists)**
Only when the project holds a baseline corpus of its *own* reference
PDFs (`literature/`, twenty or more, the author's own papers excluded):
```
python3 scripts/audit-prose-fingerprint.py --target chapters --baseline literature --exclude '<author-surname>*'
```
Report the distributions under **Measurements**, never as issues: this is
Advisory by nature. Out-of-range is the hard signal, a percentile is a
soft one, and clustering matters more than count. Method and stop rules:
`references/prose-polish-method.md`.
3. **Output the audit report** using the format below.
## Output Format
```
## Audit Report -- {YYYY-MM-DD}
### Summary
- **Critical**: {N} issues (contradictory data)
- **High**: {N} issues (broken references, missing definitions)
- **Medium**: {N} issues (terminology inconsistency, minor arithmetic)
### Issues
| # | Severity | Category | Location | Issue | Current | Expected |
|---|----------|----------|----------|-------|---------|----------|
| 1 | Critical | Numerical | Ch3 s3.2, Ch5 s5.4 | Sample size differs | 120 (Ch3) vs 125 (Ch5) | Should be consistent |
| 2 | High | Cross-ref | Ch4 s4.1 | Ref to "Section 3.7" | Section 3.7 | Section does not exist |
### Measurements (category F, when a baseline exists)
{Per metric: rate, clustering (gap CV), longest gap — with the baseline's
range and where the manuscript sits. Numbers, not verdicts.}
### Recommendations
{Grouped by severity, brief notes on how to resolve each issue.}
```
## Severity Levels
- **Critical**: The same quantitative claim has different values in different chapters. This directly undermines thesis credibility.
- **High**: Broken cross-references, undefined abbreviations on first use, missing table/figure numbers.
- **Medium**: Inconsistent terminology that does not cause factual error, minor rounding discrepancies within tolerance.
## Constraints
1. **Never auto-fix.** List all issues for the user to review and decide. The user may choose to fix selectively.
2. **No emoji** in output.
3. **Report all instances**, not just the first occurrence. If a statistic appears in 4 chapters with 2 different values, list all 4 locations.
4. **Be specific** about locations. Provide chapter number, section number, and surrounding context so the user can find the issue quickly.
5. **Do not flag stylistic issues.** This skill checks data consistency, not prose quality.