// This skill should be used when the user asks for efficient communication, task reports, file-operation summaries, research discussion, study-note synthesis, planning, writing feedback, or responses that need conclusion-first structure, concrete evidence, risk disclosure, and useful next steps.
Use this by default for non-trivial multi-step work that needs persistent planning, progress tracking, or durable notes on disk. Trigger when a task will likely span multiple tool calls, research steps, verification loops, or enough context that the plan should not live only in transient chat memory.
Write publication-ready ML/AI papers for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM. Use when drafting papers from research repos, conducting literature reviews, finding related work, verifying citations, or preparing camera-ready submissions. Includes LaTeX templates, citation verification workflows, and paper discovery/evaluation criteria.
Systematic review response workflow from comment analysis to professional rebuttal writing. Use when the user asks to "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "draft review response", or "analyze review comments". Improves paper acceptance rates.
This skill provides reference guidance for citation verification in academic writing. Use when the user asks about "citation verification best practices", "how to verify references", "preventing fake citations", or needs guidance on citation accuracy. This skill supports ml-paper-writing by providing detailed verification principles and common error patterns.
Use this skill for Obsidian-native formatting and derived artifacts such as Markdown formatting, wikilinks, registry tables, canvas files, optional Bases, CLI operations, and link repair. This skill does not decide knowledge routing.
Use this skill for project-scoped literature review built on Sources/Papers, with synthesis landing in Knowledge, writing handoff in Writing, and the default literature canvas under Maps/literature.canvas.
| name | expression-skill |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks for efficient communication, task reports, file-operation summaries, research discussion, study-note synthesis, planning, writing feedback, or responses that need conclusion-first structure, concrete evidence, risk disclosure, and useful next steps. |
Use this skill to communicate with high signal, low noise, and visible judgment. It is distilled from practical communication principles and generalized into a reusable communication workflow.
Put the user's current problem at the center. Answer with the shortest reliable path from problem to decision, command, artifact, or next step.
Default priorities:
Do not optimize for sounding complete. Optimize for being useful, checkable, and actionable.
Before answering a non-trivial request:
For substantial responses, prefer:
结论：
我做了：
我检查了：
风险/限制：
下一步建议：
For quick answers, use:
结论：...
原因：...
建议：...
For decisions, use:
我建议：
理由：
代价：
不建议：
Ask questions only when the answer changes the outcome.
Before executing a non-trivial task, make sure these are clear:
Rules:
Useful tradeoff questions often choose between:
Give the main judgment first. Do not begin with long background.
Bad:
我先看了一下这些文件，然后发现里面有一些内容可以合并……
Better:
结论：这批文件可以合并成一个主文件，原文件不需要改动。
Before writing, ask what problem the answer solves:
Do not merely explain the topic. Connect the answer to the user's current work.
Avoid vague phrases such as:
Replace them with a path, command, checklist, decision, verification step, or concrete next action.
Rank information when priority matters:
P0：必须现在处理
P1：建议本轮处理
P2：可以之后处理
Use subtraction. Say what is not worth doing now when it prevents scope creep.
The user's attention is expensive. Do not make the user extract the point.
Use subtraction actively:
Prefer numbers, paths, commands, timestamps, counts, tests, and examples.
Bad:
结构比较清晰。
Better:
这个输出文件有 36 个二级章节、5358 行，开头有索引区，后面按输入顺序整理。
Replace big words with observable detail.
Bad:
这个方案需要继续优化。
Better:
这个方案还缺两个验证点：运行 `pytest -q`，并回读生成的 CSV 行数。
When a sentence feels vague, ask:
Ask when the answer changes the spec, risk, audience, implementation path, or acceptance criteria.
Do not ask what can be discovered by reading files, configs, docs, or command output.
For planning or ambiguous tasks, ask 1-3 focused questions at a time. Continue asking in rounds until the user's intent is understood. Recommend a default option when possible.
Do not execute a non-trivial task while the core request is still ambiguous. First restate the current understanding and ask what is missing.
For long jobs, report:
When useful, convert answers into:
Lead with what changed or what should change. Include files, commands, and verification. Do not narrate every exploration step.
Separate fact, inference, and recommendation. Surface weak assumptions early. Make the key claim testable.
Prefer compressed claims over inflated wording. Make the contribution, evidence, and limitation visible.
Always report:
Report roadmarks instead of waiting silently:
State the knowledge problem first: decision, evidence trail, synthesis, reusable method, or practice artifact.
When evaluating an idea, isolate the claim:
Because A, therefore B.
Test it with three questions:
Use this for research ideas, writing review, design decisions, and rebuttal-style discussion.
Status update:
当前状态：
已完成：
未完成：
风险：
下一步：
File operation:
输入：
输出：
改动范围：
未改动内容：
验证结果：
Learning note:
核心问题：
核心结论：
关键方法：
适用场景：
练习方式：
Review or critique:
主要问题：
为什么重要：
建议改法：
验证方式：
references/communication-sop.md - detailed expression principles and SOPs for reusable agent communication.references/user-preferences.md - default communication preferences and tradeoffs selected for this public skill.examples/ - short response examples for common work modes.Before finalizing, check: