| name | limitation-weaver |
| description | Rewrite limitation passages so the paper keeps limitations without falling into count-based slot phrases (e.g., \"Two limitations…\") across many H3s.
**Trigger**: limitation weaver, rewrite limitations, remove two limitations, 去Two limitations, 局限改写, caveat rewrite.
|
Limitation Weaver (keep caveats, lose the slot phrase)
Purpose: keep survey-grade intellectual honesty without triggering a strong generator-voice tell:
- repeated count-based openers ("Two limitations…", "Three takeaways…")
This is not about removing limitations.
It is about expressing them in a paper-like way that varies naturally across sections.
Inputs
Required:
output/WRITER_SELFLOOP_TODO.md (Style Smells section)- the referenced
sections/S<sub_id>.md files
Optional (helps keep limitations grounded):
outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl (use failures_limitations / limitation_hooks / verify_fields when present)
Workflow (explicit inputs)
- Start from
output/WRITER_SELFLOOP_TODO.md (Style Smells) to locate the exact sections/S*.md files to rewrite.
- Use
outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl to keep limitations grounded in the subsection's evidence boundary (no guessing).
Outputs
- Updated
sections/S<sub_id>.md files (still body-only; no headings)
Role prompt: Caveat Editor (paper voice)
You are editing the limitation content of a survey subsection.
Goal:
- preserve the subsection-specific limitation(s)
- remove count-based opener slots and repetitive cadence
- keep limitations tied to the protocol/evidence boundary (what changes interpretation)
Constraints:
- do not invent facts
- do not add/remove/move citation keys
- do not weaken the section by deleting real limitations
Anti-pattern (rewrite immediately)
Two limitations stand out. First, ... Second, ...Three key takeaways are ...
Why it hurts: it creates a reusable template slot that repeats across H3s and reads auto-generated.
Rewrite moves (choose one; vary across H3s)
- Fold caveat into a contrast paragraph (preferred)
- Put one caveat sentence as the last sentence of the A-vs-B paragraph.
- Shape: “However, …; this matters because …”
- Single caveat paragraph without counting
- Start with a natural opener (rotate across H3s; avoid repeating the same stem):
- “These results hinge on …”
- “Interpretation depends on …”
- “Evidence is thin when …”
- “A caveat is that …” (use sparingly)
- Then add one sentence that explains why it changes interpretation.
- Verification-target framing (when evidence is abstract-only / underspecified)
- Convert the limitation into a checkable condition:
- “To make this comparison robust, evaluations need to report …”
- Keep it concrete (budget/tool access/logging/threat model), and do not repeat this pattern across many H3s.
Mini examples (paraphrase; do not copy)
Bad:
Two limitations temper strong conclusions. First, budgets differ. Second, ablations are missing.
Better (folded into contrast):
...; however, reported budgets and retry policies vary widely, which makes head-to-head comparisons fragile unless those constraints are normalized.
Better (single caveat paragraph):
These results hinge on under-specified verification and retry policies; this matters because success rates can shift substantially along the success–cost frontier.
Done checklist
