Claims Extractor

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass, no license.

.claude/skills

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 81994516a430 · 19 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• PublisherWILLOSCAR GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source folderWILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/.codex/skills/claims-extractorThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceNot declaredAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict81994516a430A new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 14 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Use when a review workspace has manuscript text and needs a traceable claim ledger.

---
name: claims-extractor
description: "Use when a review workspace has manuscript text and needs a traceable claim ledger."
---

# Claims Extractor

## Triggers & routing

- **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。


Transforms manuscript text into a traceable claim ledger for `paper-review`.

## Input

- `output/PAPER.md`

## Output

- `output/CLAIMS.md`
- `output/CLAIMS.jsonl` (`review-claim.v1`, one addressable claim per line)

## Contract

Each claim block must include:
- claim text
- type: `empirical` or `conceptual`
- scope
- source pointer back into `output/PAPER.md`

The Markdown and JSONL files are two views of the same claim records. Downstream
skills should prefer JSONL and retain Markdown fallback for older Workspaces.

## Script boundary

`scripts/run.py` should:
- detect claim-like sentences
- normalize them into stable claim blocks
- attach source pointers
- separate empirical and conceptual claims

Keep parsing and ranking heuristics in shared review tooling, not in the skill script.

## Acceptance

- `output/CLAIMS.md` exists
- `output/CLAIMS.jsonl` exists and every record has a stable `claim_id`
- every claim has a source pointer
- empirical and conceptual claims are separated

## Non-goals

- judging whether a claim is good
- generating evidence gaps
- writing review prose

Excerpt, first 1,611 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills
git -C research-units-pipeline-skills checkout 81994516a430

Works in

1. 2026-10-19
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 81994516a430

Questions about Claims Extractor

• github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/tree/main/.c — the audited source at commit 81994516a430 and every finding aboveObserved · 19 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology