/figure-rhetoric

name: figure-rhetoric
description: 'Evaluate whether figures and plots in a manuscript effectively communicate the claims they support. Audits chart-type fit, axis design, visual hierarchy, data density, caption interpretation, perceptual accuracy, and narrative arc across 8 dimensions. Triggers on: "do my figures work", "check my plots", "are my graphs clear", "figure audit", "do my figures support my claims", "visualization review", "figure rhetoric", "plot review", "chart critique", "visual argument check". Companion to manuscript-review §12 (legibility) and figure-table-quality (rendering).'
metadata:
  version: 1.0.0
  complements: [manuscript-review, figure-table-quality, manuscript-typography]
  category: review
  tags: [figures, visualization, rhetoric, plots, charts]
  difficulty: advanced
  phase: review

Figure Rhetoric Audit

**Pipeline position:** Phase 1b (content audit). Runs in parallel with manuscript-review. Requires compiled PDF. No prior dependencies. See `/manuscript-pipeline` for full execution order.

Purpose

Evaluate every figure in a manuscript as a *rhetorical act* — a visual argument that must land with the reader. Each figure exists to communicate a specific claim. This skill audits whether the figure actually achieves that communication, or whether it undermines, obscures, or contradicts the author's intent.

A figure that is technically correct but rhetorically ineffective is a wasted opportunity. Reviewers form judgments from figures before reading the methodology. A figure that fails to show what the text claims creates doubt even when the underlying data supports the claim.

Relationship to Other Skills

| Concern | This skill (figure-rhetoric) | manuscript-review | manuscript-typography | |---------|------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------| | Chart type selection | Is this the right chart for this claim? | N/A | N/A | | Visual emphasis | Does the figure draw attention to the right thing? | N/A | N/A | | Prose-figure alignment | Does a reader SEE what the text SAYS? | Does the text match the figure? (§24) | N/A | | Data selection | Should different data be plotted? | N/A | N/A | | Axis design | Do axes help or hide the story? | Axis labels present? (§12) | Font consistency | | Figure quality | N/A | Resolution, colorblind, chartjunk (§12) | Backgrounds, framing | | Figure rendering | N/A | Legibility at print scale (§23) | Caption formatting | | Provenance | N/A | N/A (→ manuscript-provenance) | N/A |

**Boundary:** manuscript-review §24 checks "does the prose match the figure?" This skill checks "does the figure *communicate* what the prose needs it to?" §24 catches factual mismatches (text says 14.3%, figure shows 13.8%). This skill catches rhetorical failures (text says "dramatic improvement," figure shows bars that look identical because the y-axis starts at 0).

Workflow

1. Ingest

**CRITICAL: This skill requires visual inspection.** LaTeX source alone is insufficient. The entire point of this audit is what the reader *sees*.

Obtain the rendered figures by one of: 1. **Compiled PDF** (preferred) — use the Read tool on the PDF file to inspect each page containing a figure at actual rendered size 2. **Individual figure files** — use the Read tool on each `.pdf`, `.png`, `.jpg` figure file referenced by `\includegraphics` 3. **If neither is available** — ask the user to compile the PDF or provide figure files. Do NOT proceed with source-only analysis. A rhetoric audit without seeing the figures is meaningless.

For each figure:

1. **Visually inspect the figure.** Read the figure file or the PDF page containing it. Before reading any prose, record what the figure communicates at first glance — the immediate visual takeaway. What pattern, trend, comparison, or relationship does a naive reader see?

2. **Extract the claim context.** Read the 2-3 paragraphs surrounding the first `\ref{fig:X}` reference. Identify the specific claim the figure is supposed to support. Write it down as a one-sentence assertion.

3. **Read the caption.** Does the caption tell the reader what to see, or does it just describe the axes?

4. **Compare.** Does the visual takeaway (step 1) match the claimed assertion (step 2)? The figure must be evaluated through the reader's eyes, not the author's intent.

2. Per-Figure Analysis

For each figure, evaluate across 8 dimensions:

---

**Dimension 1 — Claim-Figure Alignment**

The central question: does a reader who looks at this figure *see* the claim the text makes?

• Identify the prose claim (e.g., "Method A converges faster than B")
• Identify the visual impression (e.g., "Two nearly identical curves")
• If these differ: the figure fails its rhetorical purpose regardless

of whether the data technically supports the claim

Failure modes:

• **Invisible difference:** The text claims a meaningful difference but

the figure's scale, aspect ratio, or data density makes the difference imperceptible. The data is there; the visual isn't.

• **Wrong emphasis:** The figure shows many things, the text discusses one.

The reader doesn't know where to look.

• **Contradictory impression:** The visual impression actively suggests

the opposite of the claim (e.g., "convergence" but the curve is still trending; "improvement" but the bars look equal).

• **Unstated context:** The figure requires domain knowledge to interpret

that the surrounding text doesn't provide.

---

**Dimension 2 — Chart Type Appropriateness**

Is this the right type of visualization for this claim?

| Claim type | Effective chart | Ineffective chart | |------------|----------------|-------------------| | Comparison across categories | Grouped bar, dot plot | Pie chart, stacked bar (hard to compare) | | Trend over time/sequence | Line plot | Bar chart