Scholar Revise

---
name: scholar-revise
description: >-
  Record a correction to a standing claim — what was believed, what it
  rested on, and why it failed — rather than editing it away
disable-model-invocation: true
allowed-tools: ["Bash", "Read", "Glob", "Edit", "Write"]
metadata:
  argument-hint: "<term-or-claim> [--study=<dir>]"
  source: "plugins/scholar/skills/revise/SKILL.md"
---

# this skill

Something the study asserted turned out to be wrong. This records that, rather
than quietly making it true.

User arguments: $ARGUMENTS

## Why a correction is kept

```
A RETRACTED CLAIM IS WORTH MORE WRITTEN DOWN THAN DELETED
```

Deleting it does not delete it from anyone's memory. A figure that circulated
and turned out to measure something else keeps being repeated by everyone who
read it before the fix, and they have no way to learn otherwise unless the
study says so.

The correction also carries information the replacement does not: knowing that
a plausible reading of the evidence was wrong tells the next reader which
plausible readings to distrust.

## Procedure

### 1. Establish what is being overturned

Usually from the `scholar-verify` skill (a citation that no longer says what it was
quoted as saying) or from the `scholar-contest` skill (a later round that killed an
earlier verdict). Take the claim as it currently stands, verbatim.

### 2. Append to evidence/corrections.md

```markdown
## <the term or claim>

**Was:** the claim as it stood, quoted exactly.

**Rested on:** the citation or measurement that supported it.

**Failed because:** what overturned it, cited or measured.

**Now:** the replacement claim, or a statement that the question is open.
```

Append. Never rewrite an existing correction — a correction that was itself
wrong gets its own entry beneath.

### 3. Update the study

Change the affected row in `terms.jsonl` and the affected evidence document,
then link the correction from the brief's section so a reader of the brief
meets it.

## Rules

- Quote the old claim exactly. Paraphrasing a retraction is how a retraction
  becomes a second version of the original error.
- A correction states what overturned the claim, with the same evidence tier
  the claim itself required. "This turned out to be wrong" is not a
  correction.
- Where the replacement is "we do not know", say that. An open question is a
  legitimate resting state; a confident replacement invented to fill the hole
  is not.
- Never delete a correction to tidy the document.

## Output

Open with a one-line hero (`✓ corrected <claim>` or `⚠ Blocked: <reason>`),
then exactly these sections:

1. `## Correction` — the four fields, as written to the file.
2. `## Touched` — the rows and evidence documents updated.
3. `## Downstream` — anything else in the study that rested on the same
   evidence and may now be unsupported.

End with an `ask-user-choice` panel offering next steps (for example: verify
the downstream claims, re-run contest, stop here) — skip the panel only in
plan mode.


## Portability notes

- `ask-user-choice` — present the listed options and wait for the user to pick one. Hosts with a structured multiple-choice tool (Claude Code's `AskUserQuestion`) should use it; otherwise print a numbered list and wait for a numbered reply. Never proceed on an assumed answer.
- `$ARGUMENTS` — the text the user passed when invoking this skill. If your host does not substitute it, read it as the user's request in the current turn, and ask when there is none.