ppwlogic

name	ppw:logic
description	Verify logical consistency across paper sections. Traces argument chains and identifies gaps, unsupported claims, terminology inconsistencies, and number contradictions. 论文逻辑验证，识别论证链断裂、无支撑声明、术语不一致、数字矛盾。
triggers	{"primary_intent":"verify logical consistency of academic paper","examples":["Check the logic of my paper","检查我的论文逻辑","Verify argument chain across sections","验证论文各章节论证是否自洽","Find logical inconsistencies in my draft","帮我找论文里的逻辑问题"]}
tools	["Read","Write","Structured Interaction"]
references	{"required":["references/bilingual-output.md"],"leaf_hints":[]}
input_modes	["file","pasted_text"]
output_contract	["logic_report"]

Purpose

This Skill reads a full academic paper and verifies logical consistency across its sections. It identifies four types of issues — argument chain gaps (AC-), unsupported claims (UC-), terminology inconsistencies (TI-), and number contradictions (NC-) — and produces a two-part bilingual report. Part 1 maps each section's primary claim as an Argument Chain View table, showing how claims connect (or fail to connect) from Introduction through Conclusion. Part 2 categorizes every identified issue with a problem description, an impact statement, and a one-sentence directional suggestion, each followed by an inline Chinese translation. The Skill never rewrites text; it identifies and suggests only.

Core Prompt

Source: awesome-ai-research-writing — 逻辑检查

# Role
你是一位负责论文终稿校对的学术助手。你的任务是进行"红线审查"，确保论文没有致命错误。

# Task
请对我提供的【英文 LaTeX 代码片段】进行最后的一致性与逻辑核对。

# Constraints
1. 审查阈值（高容忍度）：
   - 默认假设：请预设当前的草稿已经经过了多轮修改与校正，质量较高。
   - 仅报错原则：只有在遇到阻碍读者理解的逻辑断层、引起歧义的术语混乱、或严重的语法错误时才提出意见。
   - 严禁优化：对于"可改可不改"的风格问题、或者仅仅是"换个词听起来更高级"的建议，请直接忽略，不要通过挑刺来体现你的存在感。

2. 审查维度：
   - 致命逻辑：是否存在前后完全矛盾的陈述？
   - 术语一致性：核心概念是否在没有说明的情况下换了名字？
   - 严重语病：是否存在导致句意不清的中式英语（Chinglish）或语法结构错误。

3. 输出格式：
   - 如果没有上述"必须修改"的错误，请直接输出中文：[检测通过，无实质性问题]。
   - 如果有问题，请使用中文分点简要指出，不要长篇大论。

Trigger

Activates when the user asks to:

• Check, verify, or find logical problems in their paper
• 检查论文逻辑、验证论证链、帮我找逻辑问题

Example invocations:

• "Check the logic of my paper" / "检查我的论文逻辑"
• "Verify argument chain across sections" / "验证论文各章节论证是否自洽"
• "Find logical inconsistencies in my draft" / "帮我找论文里的逻辑问题"

Modes

Mode	Default	Behavior
direct	Yes	Single-pass full-paper analysis, no intermediate confirmation steps
batch		Not supported — cross-section logic verification requires full-paper context

Default mode: direct. User provides the paper and receives a complete two-part logic report.

References

Required (always loaded)

Logic verification loads references/bilingual-output.md to govern the Chinese translation format and opt-out behavior. No expression pattern leaves are needed, and anti-AI patterns are not loaded (consistent with Reviewer Simulation Skill convention). Logic verification is also journal-agnostic; no journal templates are loaded.

Leaf Hints

None.

Ask Strategy

Before starting, ask about:

1. Input format: file path or pasted text? (skip if obvious from how the user invoked the Skill)
2. Section structure: ask only if section boundaries are unclear from the input (e.g., unnumbered prose without headings)

Rules:

• In direct mode with sufficient input, proceed without pre-questions.
• Do not ask more than 1 question before starting analysis.
• Use Structured Interaction when available; fall back to a single plain-text question otherwise.

Workflow

Step 0: Workflow Memory Check

• Read .planning/workflow-memory.json. If file missing or empty, skip to Step 1.
• Check if the last 1-2 log entries form a recognized pattern with ppw:logic that has appeared >= threshold times in the log. See skill-conventions.md > Workflow Memory > Pattern Detection for the full algorithm.
• If a pattern is found, present recommendation via AskUserQuestion:
  • Question: "检测到常用流程：[pattern]（已出现 N 次）。是否直接以 direct 模式运行 ppw:logic？"
  • Options: "Yes, proceed" / "No, continue normally"
• If user accepts: set mode to direct, skip Ask Strategy questions.
• If user declines or AskUserQuestion unavailable: continue in normal mode.

Step 1 — Input Guard

• Accept input as a file path (Read tool) or pasted text from conversation.
• Full-paper guard: If input appears to be partial — single section heading only, fewer than ~500 words, or missing Methods/Results/Discussion markers — refuse with:

  "Cross-section verification requires the full paper. Please provide the complete manuscript."

• Parse section structure: identify section boundaries and titles exactly as they appear in the paper.
• Record workflow: Append {"skill": "ppw:logic", "ts": "<ISO timestamp>"} to .planning/workflow-memory.json. Create file as [] if missing. Drop oldest entry if log length >= 50.

Step 2 — Analyze Four Issue Types

• Follow the Core Prompt constraints above as the primary instruction set — especially the high-tolerance threshold and the "仅报错原则".

Run all four issue-type checks before building the Argument Chain View table. The table Status column is derived from the issues found in this step.

Argument Chain Gaps (AC-)

• Map each section's primary research claim or contribution.
• Check: Does the Introduction claim get supported by the Methods design?
• Check: Do the Results address the measurements stated in Methods?
• Check: Does the Discussion draw conclusions that follow from the Results?
• Check: Does the Conclusion match the findings stated in the Discussion?
• For each chain break, create Issue AC-N with the relevant section references.

Unsupported Claims (UC-)

• Scan for assertive statements that lack evidence, a citation, or a data reference.
• Focus on bold claims in Introduction and Discussion sections.
• For each unsupported claim, create Issue UC-N quoting the exact claim text.

Terminology Inconsistencies (TI-)

• Track all technical terms and model/method names introduced in the Introduction.
• Compare usage across all sections for variation: explicit renames, abbreviations introduced mid-paper, mixed use of formal and informal names.
• For each inconsistency, create Issue TI-N quoting ALL variant terms verbatim with their section locations.
• If an abbreviation is defined on first use in the Introduction, do not flag it as an inconsistency.

Number Contradictions (NC-)

• Extract quantitative values stated in the Introduction (sample size, accuracy claims, improvement figures).
• Compare against values stated in Results and Conclusion.
• For each discrepancy, create Issue NC-N quoting both values and their locations.
• Ignore numbers in non-quantitative contexts (figure labels, section numbers, footnote markers).

Step 3 — Build Part 1 Argument Chain View

• After AC- analysis is complete, build the table using analysis evidence.
• Status = "Connected" only when no AC- issue spans that section pair.
• Status = "Gap" when one or more AC- issues involve that section transition.
• Use section titles exactly as they appear in the paper.

Step 4 — Write Report

• Opt-out check: Before assembling the report, scan the user's original trigger prompt for any of these phrases (case-insensitive, exact phrase match): english only, no bilingual, only english, 不要中文. If any phrase is detected: omit all > **[Chinese]** ... blockquotes from the report -- produce English-only issue entries. If none detected: include Chinese blockquotes as normal.
• Assemble the two-part report (see Output Contract for locked format).
• Report presents Part 1 table first (readability), then Part 2 categorized issues.
• File input: Derive output filename as {input_filename_without_ext}_logic.md; write using Write tool.
• Pasted text input: Present report in conversation.
• State issue count summary at the end: "Found N issues: X AC-, Y UC-, Z TI-, W NC-."

Output Contract

Output	Format	Condition
logic_report	Markdown file {input_filename_without_ext}_logic.md	File input
logic_report	Conversation output	Pasted text input

Locked two-part report format:

# Logic Verification Report

**Paper:** [title or filename]
**Date:** [date]

## Part 1 — Argument Chain View

| Section | Primary Claim | Connects To | Status |
|---------|--------------|-------------|--------|
| Introduction | [claim] | Methods | Connected / Gap |
| Methods | [claim] | Results | Connected / Gap |
| Results | [claim] | Discussion | Connected / Gap |
| Discussion | [claim] | Conclusion | Connected / Gap |
| Conclusion | [claim] | — | Terminal |

## Part 2 — Categorized Issue List

### Argument Chain Gaps

**Issue AC-1: [Descriptive Title]**
**Section:** [Introduction]
**Problem:** [description]
**Why this matters:** [impact on argument coherence]
**Suggestion:** [one-sentence directional suggestion]
> **[Chinese]** 问题：... 为什么重要：... 建议：...

### Unsupported Claims

**Issue UC-1: [Descriptive Title]**
[same three-part structure + Chinese blockquote]

### Terminology Inconsistencies

**Issue TI-1: [Descriptive Title]**
[same structure — quote exact verbatim terms from the paper]

### Number Contradictions

**Issue NC-1: [Descriptive Title]**
[same structure]

Notes:

• Part 1 Argument Chain View table is English only (structural, not language-sensitive).
• Part 2 issue entries are bilingual: English problem/why/suggestion followed immediately by > **[Chinese]** ... blockquote.
• Issue numbering is consecutive within each category (AC-1, AC-2, …; UC-1, UC-2, …).

Edge Cases

Situation	Handling
Input is partial (single section or < 500 words)	Refuse: "Cross-section verification requires the full paper. Please provide the complete manuscript."
Paper has no Discussion (e.g., Results → Conclusion directly)	Adapt chain view to actual sections present; note missing sections in the table with "N/A"
Paper uses Chinese section titles	Use Chinese titles as-is in the table and all section references
No issues found in a category	Include the category heading in Part 2 with "No issues identified in this category."
User asks Skill to rewrite identified issues	Decline: "This Skill identifies issues and suggests directions only. Use the Polish Skill for rewriting."
Numbers appear in non-quantitative context (figure labels, section numbers)	Ignore; focus on empirical claims and quantitative results only
Abbreviation is defined on first use in Introduction	Do not flag as a TI- inconsistency; defined abbreviations are intentional

Fallbacks

Scenario	Fallback
Structured Interaction unavailable	Proceed in direct mode without pre-questions; ask file-vs-pasted via plain text only if genuinely unclear
Read tool fails (file not found or unreadable)	Ask user to paste the paper text instead
Write tool fails	Present the logic report in conversation; advise user to save manually as _logic.md
Paper is extremely long (> 20,000 words)	Warn: "Analysis may be approximate for very long manuscripts." Offer to focus on specific section pairs if needed

Examples

Minimal invocation (file input):

User: "Check the logic of my draft: /papers/urban_model.pdf"

Ask Strategy (direct mode — file path provided, proceeding without pre-questions)

Step 2 analysis runs: AC-1 found (Introduction→Methods chain break), TI-1 found (terminology variant) Step 3 derives Status column from AC-1

Truncated output (urban_model_logic.md):

# Logic Verification Report

**Paper:** urban_model.pdf
**Date:** 2026-03-12

## Part 1 — Argument Chain View

| Section | Primary Claim | Connects To | Status |
|---------|--------------|-------------|--------|
| Introduction | Urban sprawl prediction framework proposed | Methods | Gap |
| Methods | Gradient boosting model trained on parcel data | Results | Connected |
| Results | 82% accuracy on hold-out set | Discussion | Connected |
| Discussion | Model generalizes to mid-size cities | Conclusion | Connected |
| Conclusion | Framework advances urban planning practice | — | Terminal |

## Part 2 — Categorized Issue List

### Argument Chain Gaps

**Issue AC-1: Introduction Framework Not Reflected in Methods Design**
**Section:** [Introduction], [Methods]
**Problem:** The Introduction proposes a "multi-scale prediction framework," but Methods describes a single-scale gradient boosting model with no multi-scale architecture.
**Why this matters:** Reviewers will note the mismatch between the stated contribution and the actual implementation, undermining the novelty claim.
**Suggestion:** Either update the Introduction to describe a single-scale model, or add a multi-scale component to Methods with justification.
> **[Chinese]** 问题：引言提出"多尺度预测框架"，但方法章节仅描述单尺度梯度提升模型，无多尺度架构。为什么重要：审稿人会注意到声明贡献与实际实现之间的不一致，削弱新颖性声明。建议：修改引言以描述单尺度模型，或在方法中补充多尺度组件并加以说明。

### Unsupported Claims

No issues identified in this category.

### Terminology Inconsistencies

**Issue TI-1: "Urban Sprawl Prediction Framework" vs. "Urban Growth Model"**
**Section:** [Introduction, 第2段], [Methods, 第1段]
**Problem:** The Introduction uses "urban sprawl prediction framework" while Methods refers to the same system as "urban growth model" without an explicit rename or definition.
**Why this matters:** Readers and reviewers may interpret these as different systems, reducing clarity.
**Suggestion:** Choose one term and use it consistently throughout, or introduce the alternative as a defined synonym on first use.
> **[Chinese]** 问题：引言使用"城市蔓延预测框架"，方法章节将同一系统称为"城市增长模型"，未作明确说明。为什么重要：读者和审稿人可能将其理解为不同系统，降低论文清晰度。建议：统一使用一个术语，或在首次出现时将替代名称定义为同义词。

### Number Contradictions

No issues identified in this category.

Found 2 issues: 1 AC-, 0 UC-, 1 TI-, 0 NC-.

---

Skill: logic-skill Conventions: references/skill-conventions.md