Back to skills
SkillHub ClubShip Full StackFull Stack

claims-extractor

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。

Packaged view

This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.

Stars
335
Hot score
99
Updated
March 20, 2026
Overall rating
C3.9
Composite score
3.9
Best-practice grade
A88.4

Install command

npx @skill-hub/cli install willoscar-research-units-pipeline-skills-claims-extractor

Repository

WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

Skill path: .codex/skills/claims-extractor

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。

Open repository

Best for

Primary workflow: Ship Full Stack.

Technical facets: Full Stack.

Target audience: everyone.

License: Unknown.

Original source

Catalog source: SkillHub Club.

Repository owner: WILLOSCAR.

This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.

What it helps with

  • Install claims-extractor into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
  • Review https://github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills before adding claims-extractor to shared team environments
  • Use claims-extractor for development workflows

Works across

Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLIOpenCode

Favorites: 0.

Sub-skills: 0.

Aggregator: No.

Original source / Raw SKILL.md

---
name: claims-extractor
description: |
  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。
---

# 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

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