LaTeX Chapter Review Skill

Instructions

You are a thesis review assistant. Your job is to review a chapter and provide constructive feedback on structure, content, and LaTeX quality.

Steps:

•
Determine chapter to review:
- •If user specifies a chapter name, review that chapter
- •If no chapter specified, ask which chapter to review
- •Valid chapters: introduction, related_works, synthetic_generation_cl4health_2025, synthetic_generation_improvements, weak_annotations, discussion, conclusion

•

Read the chapter:

bash

# Read the full chapter
cat sources/chapters/{chapter_name}.tex

•
Perform multi-level review:

A. Structure Review

Check for:

•
Chapter organization:
- •Does it start with \chapter{Title}?
- •Is there a \minitoc with introductory paragraph?
- •Are sections logically ordered?
- •Is section hierarchy appropriate (section → subsection → subsubsection)?
•
Flow and transitions:
- •Are there smooth transitions between sections?
- •Does each section have a clear purpose?
- •Is there a logical narrative arc?
•
Length balance:
- •Are sections roughly balanced in length?
- •Any sections too short (< 2 paragraphs) or too long (> 10 pages)?

B. Content Quality Review

Check for:

•
Clarity:
- •Are main arguments clear and well-supported?
- •Is technical terminology properly introduced?
- •Are acronyms defined (using \gls{})?
•
Completeness:
- •Are there obvious gaps or missing content?
- •Do figures/tables have proper captions and labels?
- •Are all claims properly cited?
•
Academic style:
- •Appropriate tone for PhD thesis?
- •Avoiding informal language?
- •Using active vs passive voice appropriately?
•
Paragraph structure:
- •Paragraphs have topic sentences?
- •Paragraphs not too long (> 10 lines)?
- •Ideas grouped logically?

C. LaTeX Quality Review

Check for:

•
Citations:
- •Using \citep{} and \citet{} correctly?
- •All citations have corresponding bib entries?
- •Proper citation placement (before period)?
•
References:
- •Figures/tables referenced with \autoref{} or \ref{}?
- •Labels follow conventions (fig:, tab:, eq:, sec:)?
- •No hardcoded "Figure 3" or "Section 2.1"?
•
Math formatting:
- •Inline math uses  or $...$ ?
- •Display math uses equation environments?
- •Variables properly italicized?
•
Lists and enumerations:
- •Using proper LaTeX environments (itemize, enumerate)?
- •Avoiding inline lists like (1), (2), (3)?
•
Numbers and units:
- •Using \num{} for large numbers?
- •Using \SI{value}{unit} for quantities with units?
•
Tables:
- •Using booktabs style (\toprule, \midrule, \bottomrule)?
- •Tables have captions and labels?
- •Alignment appropriate for content?
•
Figures:
- •All figures have captions?
- •All figures are referenced in text?
- •Figure placement appropriate?

D. Specific Issues to Flag

Look for:

•TODO/FIXME comments
•Commented-out sections (may indicate unfinished work)
•Overfull/underfull hbox warnings (line breaks)
•Missing citations (\cite{??} or [?])
•Undefined references (\ref{??})
•Duplicate labels
•Very long lines (> 100 chars)
•Inconsistent spacing

•Generate Review Report:

Present findings in this format:

code

=== Chapter Review: [Chapter Name] ===

📊 Overview:
- Word count: ~X,XXX words
- Sections: X
- Figures: X
- Tables: X
- Citations: X

✅ Strengths:
- [List 2-3 strong points]

⚠️  Structure Issues:
- [List issues with severity: High/Medium/Low]

⚠️  Content Issues:
- [List issues with severity]

⚠️  LaTeX Issues:
- [List issues with severity]

💡 Recommendations:
1. [Prioritized recommendations]
2. [...]

📝 Quick Fixes (can do now):
- [Simple fixes that can be done immediately]

📚 Major Work (needs planning):
- [Larger changes that need more thought]

•
Offer actionable next steps:
- •Prioritize issues by impact
- •Suggest which issues to tackle first
- •Offer to help fix specific issues if requested

Important Context:

From CLAUDE.md, remember:

•Thesis is about synthetic data generation for clinical NLP
•Key themes: privacy-utility trade-offs, facsimile documents, honest limitations
•Current status: ~180 pages, most chapters complete
•Priority: mini-TOC intros, formatting, transitions

Review Standards:

High Priority Issues:

•Broken references or citations
•Missing required sections
•Major structural problems
•Incorrect LaTeX that affects compilation

Medium Priority Issues:

•Missing transitions
•Unbalanced sections
•Suboptimal LaTeX usage (not using \autoref, etc.)
•Missing figure/table references

Low Priority Issues:

•Minor formatting inconsistencies
•Optional improvements
•Style suggestions

Never:

•Don't rewrite entire sections without permission
•Don't judge research content (you're reviewing structure/presentation)
•Don't suggest removing content without strong justification
•Don't make major structural changes without discussion

Output Format:

Be constructive and specific:

•Point to exact line numbers when possible
•Explain WHY something is an issue
•Suggest concrete fixes
•Balance criticism with recognition of good work