Run three-layer verification on written sections. Extract deliverables from SUMMARY.md, generate verification checklist, guide user through each check, log issues. The USER performs judgment-based verification — Claude runs mechanical checks, identifies potential issues, and guides the verification process. Academic writing verification has three distinct layers: **1. Citation Check (Mechanical)** - Claude can run this - All claims have citations where needed - Citations formatted correctly for style - All cited works appear in bibliography - No broken references or [CITE:] placeholders - Page numbers where required by style **2. Argument Coherence (Logical)** - Claude identifies, user verifies - Claims follow from evidence - No logical contradictions - Thesis supported throughout - Counterarguments addressed - Flow between paragraphs **3. Rubric Check (Requirements)** - Both verify - Required sections present - Word/page limits met - Formatting requirements met - All required elements included - Submission checklist complete **Determine what to verify:** If $ARGUMENTS provided: - Parse as section number (e.g., "4") or plan number (e.g., "04-02") - Find corresponding SUMMARY.md file(s) If no arguments: - Find most recently modified SUMMARY.md ```bash find .planning/sections -name "*SUMMARY.md" -type f -exec ls -lt {} + | head -5 ``` Read the SUMMARY.md to understand what was written. **Extract verifiable elements from SUMMARY.md:** Parse for: 1. **Claims made** - Statements that need citations 2. **Citations used** - References added 3. **Word count** - Against target 4. **Section goal** - Was it accomplished? Focus on VERIFIABLE outcomes: Examples: - "Introduction establishes research gap" → Check: gap clearly stated - "Three prior approaches cited" → Check: verify three relevant citations - "Methods section ~500 words" → Check: actual word count **Run Citation Check (Mechanical):** Claude performs these checks directly: ``` ## Layer 1: Citation Check Scanning [section/file] for citation issues... ### All Claims Have Citations - [ ] [Claim 1] - citation: [present/missing] - [ ] [Claim 2] - citation: [present/missing] [List all factual claims and their citation status] ### Citation Format Style: [detected/specified style - APA, IEEE, etc.] - [ ] Author-year format consistent - [ ] Et al. used correctly - [ ] Punctuation correct ### Bibliography Match - [ ] All in-text citations appear in references - [ ] No orphan references (in bibliography but not cited) - [ ] All [CITE:] placeholders resolved ### Issues Found [List any mechanical citation issues] ``` **If issues found:** Present for resolution before continuing. **Prepare Argument Coherence Check (Logical):** Claude identifies potential issues, user verifies: ``` ## Layer 2: Argument Coherence ### Thesis Support Central claim: [from argument-map.md] This section should support it by: [expected contribution] **Check:** Does the section actually advance the thesis? ### Logical Flow Reading the section for argument structure... Paragraph flow: 1. [Para 1 purpose] → [Para 2 purpose] → [Para 3 purpose] **Potential gaps identified:** - [Gap 1]: Between [X] and [Y], transition unclear - [Gap 2]: Claim [Z] not fully supported ### Contradiction Check Cross-referencing with prior sections... **Potential contradictions:** - [None found / List any inconsistencies] ### Counterargument Coverage For claims that might face objection: - [Claim]: [Counterargument addressed? Y/N] ``` Use AskUserQuestion for each potential issue: - header: "[Issue type]" - question: "[Describe the potential issue] - Is this actually a problem?" - options: - "Not an issue" — The logic is sound - "Minor issue" — Note but don't block - "Major issue" — Needs fixing - "Let me look" — I need to review the text **Run Rubric Check (Requirements):** ``` ## Layer 3: Rubric Check ### Required Elements [Based on document type and venue requirements] - [ ] [Required element 1]: [present/missing] - [ ] [Required element 2]: [present/missing] [Check all required elements for this section type] ### Word Count Target: [from ROADMAP.md] Actual: [count from written content] Status: [within range / over / under by X%] ### Formatting - [ ] Heading levels correct - [ ] Figure/table formatting (if applicable) - [ ] Reference style consistent ### Section-Specific Requirements [Based on section type - e.g., for Methods:] - [ ] Participants/setting described - [ ] Procedure clear - [ ] Measures defined - [ ] Analysis approach stated ``` **Collect and categorize all issues:** For each issue identified across three layers: ``` ### Issue Summary **Layer 1 (Citation) Issues:** - [Issue]: [Severity] - [Brief description] **Layer 2 (Coherence) Issues:** - [Issue]: [Severity] - [Brief description] **Layer 3 (Rubric) Issues:** - [Issue]: [Severity] - [Brief description] ``` Severity levels: - **Critical** — Must fix before submission (factual error, missing required element) - **Major** — Should fix (logical gap, weak support) - **Minor** — Consider fixing (polish, enhancement) - **Note** — Awareness item (not blocking) **Log issues to section file if found:** If any Critical or Major issues: Create `.planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-ISSUES.md`: ```markdown # Section [X] Verification Issues ## Summary - Critical: [N] - Major: [N] - Minor: [N] ## Critical Issues ### CRIT-001: [Brief description] **Layer:** [Citation/Coherence/Rubric] **Location:** [paragraph/claim/element] **Issue:** [Full description] **Fix needed:** [What needs to change] ## Major Issues ### MAJ-001: [Brief description] [Same format] ## Minor Issues [List briefly] ## Verification Date [Date of this review] ``` **Present verification summary:** ``` # Verification Results: [Section Name] ## Layer Scores - Citation Check: [PASS/ISSUES - N issues] - Coherence Check: [PASS/ISSUES - N issues] - Rubric Check: [PASS/ISSUES - N issues] ## Overall Status [Based on issues found:] - ALL PASS: "Section verified. Ready to proceed." - MINOR ONLY: "Section solid with minor polish opportunities." - MAJOR ISSUES: "Section needs revisions before proceeding." - CRITICAL: "Critical issues found - must address before continuing." ## Issues by Priority [If issues exist:] **Must Fix:** - [Critical issue 1] - [Major issue 1] **Should Fix:** - [Major issue 2] - [Minor issue 1] **Consider:** - [Minor issues] ## Next Steps [Based on verdict:] - If clean: Proceed to next section - If issues: /wtfp:plan-revision to address ``` **Offer next actions based on results:** Use AskUserQuestion: - header: "Next" - question: "What would you like to do?" - options (based on results): If all passed: - "Continue to next section" — Proceed with confidence - "Verify more" — Run additional checks - "Done" — Finish verification session If issues found: - "Plan revision" — Create plan to fix issues (/wtfp:plan-revision) - "Fix now" — Address issues immediately - "Log and continue" — Issues logged, proceed anyway - "Done" — Finish verification session **Different sections emphasize different checks:** | Section | Citation Heavy | Coherence Heavy | Rubric Heavy | |---------|---------------|-----------------|--------------| | Abstract | Low | Medium | High (word limit) | | Introduction | High (gap) | High (argument) | Medium | | Related Work | Very High | High (synthesis) | Medium | | Methods | Low | Medium | High (completeness) | | Results | Low (own data) | Medium | High (all findings) | | Discussion | High (context) | Very High | Medium | Adjust verification emphasis accordingly. - [ ] Section/plan identified from SUMMARY.md - [ ] Layer 1 (Citation) check completed - [ ] Layer 2 (Coherence) issues identified for user verification - [ ] Layer 3 (Rubric) check completed - [ ] All issues categorized by severity - [ ] Issues logged to section ISSUES.md if Critical/Major - [ ] Summary presented with clear verdict - [ ] User knows next steps based on results