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

Output format (recommended)

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

• If DECISIONS.md exists, apply any review scope/format constraints.

• Read the manuscript (output/PAPER.md ) end-to-end (at least abstract + intro + method + experiments + limitations).

• Extract:

• primary contributions (what is new)

• key claims (what is asserted)

• assumptions (what must be true for claims to hold)

• Normalize each item into one sentence.

• Attach a source pointer for every item.

• 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.