claims-extractor

WILLOSCAR's avatarfrom WILLOSCAR

Extract key claims, contributions, and assumptions from a paper/manuscript into `output/CLAIMS.md` with traceability to source locations.**Trigger**: claims extractor, extract claims, contributions, assumptions, peer review, 审稿, 主张提取.**Use when**: 审稿/评审或 evidence audit，需要把主张列表落盘并可追溯到原文位置（section/page/quote）。**Skip if**: 没有可用的稿件/全文（例如缺少 `output/PAPER.md` 或等价文本）。**Network**: none.**Guardrail**: 每条 claim 必须带可定位的 source pointer；区分 empirical vs conceptual claims。

⭐1stars🔀0forks📁View on GitHub🕐Updated Jan 8, 2026
[Academic Research]

When & Why to Use This Skill

The Claims Extractor is a specialized Claude skill designed to systematically identify and document key claims, contributions, and assumptions from academic manuscripts. It transforms complex papers into an auditable list with precise source traceability, ensuring every assertion is linked to its specific location in the text for rigorous peer review and evidence auditing.

Use Cases

  • Peer Review: Streamlining the manuscript evaluation process by automatically extracting and categorizing all major claims for verification.
  • Evidence Auditing: Verifying the factual basis of scientific papers by mapping empirical claims directly to specific data points, sections, or quotes.
  • Literature Synthesis: Rapidly distilling core contributions and underlying assumptions from multiple papers to build a structured research knowledge base.
  • Manuscript Quality Control: Identifying vague or underspecified claims that lack measurable dimensions, helping authors or reviewers improve clarity and rigor.
nameclaims-extractor
description|
**Trigger**claims extractor, extract claims, contributions, assumptions, peer review, 审稿, 主张提取.
**Use when**审稿/评审或 evidence audit，需要把主张列表落盘并可追溯到原文位置（section/page/quote）。
**Skip if**没有可用的稿件/全文（例如缺少 `output/PAPER.md` 或等价文本）。
**Network**none.
**Guardrail**每条 claim 必须带可定位的 source pointer；区分 empirical vs conceptual claims。

Claims Extractor (peer review)

Goal: turn a manuscript into an auditable list of claims that downstream skills can check.

Inputs

Required:

  • output/PAPER.md (or equivalent plain-text manuscript)

Optional:

  • DECISIONS.md (review scope or constraints)

Outputs

  • output/CLAIMS.md

For each claim, include at minimum:

  • Claim: one sentence
  • Type: empirical | conceptual
  • Scope: what the claim applies to / what it does not apply to
  • Source: a locatable pointer into output/PAPER.md (section + page/figure/table + a short quote)

Workflow

  1. If DECISIONS.md exists, apply any review scope/format constraints.
  2. Read the manuscript (output/PAPER.md) end-to-end (at least abstract + intro + method + experiments + limitations).
  3. Extract:
    • primary contributions (what is new)
    • key claims (what is asserted)
    • assumptions (what must be true for claims to hold)
  4. Normalize each item into one sentence.
  5. Attach a source pointer for every item.
  6. Split into two sections:
    • Empirical claims (must be backed by experiments/data)
    • Conceptual claims (must be backed by argument/definition)

Definition of Done

  • output/CLAIMS.md exists.
  • Every claim has a source pointer that can be located in output/PAPER.md.
  • Empirical vs conceptual claims are clearly separated.

Troubleshooting

Issue: the paper is only a PDF or HTML

Fix:

  • Convert/extract it into a plain-text output/PAPER.md first (even rough extraction is OK), then run claim extraction.

Issue: claims are vague (“significant”, “better”, “state-of-the-art”)

Fix:

  • Rewrite each claim to include the measurable dimension (metric/dataset/baseline) or mark it as “underspecified” with a note.