| name | chuanfei-writing |
| description | Evidence-based Chuanfei Dong manuscript-writing and review style distilled from MAVEN switchback draft samples (`reports/chuanfei_pdf_texts/file_21.txt` and `file_22.txt`) using the impersonate-meta methodology plus a Zhipu GLM review pass. Use when drafting, revising, or reviewing Chuanfei/MAVEN switchback manuscripts, especially to enforce diagnostic-first argument structure, event-list discipline, claim-strength calibration, and caption/table style. Scope is manuscript voice only; do not infer biography or personality.
|
| version | 0.1.0 |
Chuanfei Writing Skill
Scope and evidence discipline
This skill is a manuscript-writing/review skill, not a full biographical persona.
It was distilled from two local manuscript text samples:
reports/chuanfei_pdf_texts/file_21.txtreports/chuanfei_pdf_texts/file_22.txt
and a Zhipu GLM-5.1 distillation pass saved at:
reports/chuanfei_skill_distillation_20260529/zhipu_distillation_raw.md- metadata:
reports/chuanfei_skill_distillation_20260529/zhipu_call_meta.json
Do not fabricate anecdotes, spoken style, mentoring style, or private preferences.
Every strong style claim below must remain traceable to the local draft samples or
be marked [unverified].
Core voice model
Chuanfei's manuscript voice in these drafts is a diagnostics-first observational
physicist voice:
- Start from an observational/radial gap. Establish that PSP/near-Sun
switchbacks are known, but confirmed tests near Mars/1--2 au are missing.
- Define the phenomenon by observables, not by name alone. Magnetic
rotations must be quasi-constant-|B|, Alfvénic, low-compressibility, and
geometrically coherent.
- Prove upstream cleanliness before interpretation. MAVEN must be well
upstream of bow shock/MPB; otherwise the event may be a planetary-boundary
artifact.
- Use a test-program pipeline. Deflection angle, compressibility, Walén
relation/slope/correlation, cross helicity, spherical-polarization arc,
MVA geometry, and boundary widths form a diagnostic chain.
- Lead with the best event. Treat #02272 as the flagship/textbook event;
use companion events for consistency, not for geometry if their MVA is weak.
- Mechanism through signatures. Discuss WKB/expansion vs reconnection/shear
through predicted observables: Alfvénicity through kink boundaries,
field-aligned elongation, and boundary widths.
- Conservative final implication. Preserve the diagnostic chain but soften
global/first/largest/rule-out claims unless independently verified.
Argument grammar for a Chuanfei-like Letter
Use this order unless there is a strong reason not to:
- Problem/gap: switchbacks are known near the Sun; survival/diagnostic
identity beyond 1 au is under-tested.
- Instrument/location safeguard: MAVEN MAG/SWIA at Mars orbit; establish
pristine upstream solar-wind interval.
- Selection criteria: state the event-selection threshold and diagnostic
requirements before presenting events.
- Flagship event: describe #02272 in detail: rotation, constant-|B|,
unit-circle arc, Walén/cross-helicity behavior, MVA normal, tanh boundary
widths.
- Companion events: present #02050 and any near-threshold companion only as
repeatability/consistency checks; avoid overclaiming geometry.
- Mechanism test: compare diagnostic signatures to expansion/WKB vs local
reconnection/shear predictions.
- Caveat: boundary-local reconnection/kinetic activity is not identical to
reconnection-driven formation.
- Implication: event-level evidence that Alfvénic switchback-like structures
can persist to Mars orbit; broader population claims need a survey.
Diagnostic/value rules
- Upstream first: never interpret as heliospheric physics until MAVEN's
upstream context is stated.
- Multi-diagnostic naming: do not call something a switchback because of
angle alone. Require low compressibility, Alfvénic velocity-field relation,
cross-helicity behavior, and polarization geometry where possible.
- Best-event discipline: use #02272 for MVA/boundary geometry if it is the
only well-conditioned case. Do not pretend all events support all diagnostics.
- Event-list discipline: do not mix the
file_21 event set (#02272, #02050,
#02222) with the file_22/v13 event set (#02272, #02050, #01974) without an
explicit note.
- #01974 discipline: if using #01974 with θmax=82°, call it a
near-threshold Alfvénic companion, not a strict >90° switchback.
- Mechanism calibration: prefer “supports/favors/disfavors” unless the
alternatives and literature have been checked; avoid unsupported “rules out”.
- Population calibration: three events can show event-level persistence and
motivate a survey; they cannot prove a global radial survival law.
Lexical phrase bank
Prefer phrases like:
- “pristine upstream solar wind”; “well upstream of the bow shock and MPB”
- “quasi-constant-|B| rotation”; “constant-|B| spherical polarization”
- “clean arc on the unit circle”
- “normalized cross helicity remains high through the kink boundaries”
- “field-aligned elongated structure”
- “boundary-local reconnection is distinct from reconnection-driven formation”
- “event-level diagnostic evidence”; “supports/favors an expansion/WKB-consistent
interpretation”
Avoid or soften unless independently verified:
- “first confirmed” / “largest heliocentric distance” / “never before”
- “rules out reconnection-driven formation”
- “persist essentially undiminished”
- treating all three events as strict switchbacks if #01974 is included
- vague committee prose that says “important implications” without the diagnostic
chain.
Figure/table/caption style
- Captions should be diagnostic and panel-by-panel: say what each panel proves,
not merely what it displays.
- Put upstream-location evidence early, ideally before event physics figures.
- Tables must preserve diagnostic provenance: event time, θmax, |B| variability,
Walén/cross-helicity metrics, and notes for unavailable or non-threshold values.
- If a table entry is unavailable, say “not listed”/“not available in source” and
explain why; do not use
odata or ellipses in a review candidate.
- Figure labels must be readable. If source PNG labels are too small, TeX scaling
is not a real fix; regenerate figures if possible.
Review checklist for an existing draft
- Does the abstract run phenomenon → gap → MAVEN/upstream → event sample →
diagnostic chain → conservative implication?
- Does the introduction connect PSP/near-Sun switchbacks to a Mars-orbit
survival/mechanism test rather than generic motivation?
- Are upstream solar-wind/boundary conditions established before interpretation?
- Is the event list internally consistent?
- Is #01974 described as near-threshold if θmax=82°?
- Are mechanism statements tied to observables (cross helicity at boundaries,
MVA geometry, boundary widths), not asserted abstractly?
- Are first/largest/rule-out claims externally verified or softened?
- Are captions diagnostic and panel-by-panel?
- Are there any draft artifacts: placeholder authors, internal notes,
TODO,
CITATION NEEDED, odata, “draft sample”, “working class”, visible line
numbers, or typeset/draft slugs?
- Does the conclusion avoid population-level overreach from three events?
How to use this skill on v13
For the v13 single-column candidate, the likely remaining Chuanfei-style gaps are:
- It may be too committee-polished in places: ensure the diagnostic chain remains
explicit rather than replaced by generic significance language.
- Keep the #01974 near-threshold caveat visible enough that readers do not think
all three events meet θmax>90°.
- Check every mechanism phrase; soften any “rules out” language unless it is
explicitly tied to boundary widths/cross-helicity and literature support.
- Improve figure-source readability if original plotting scripts/data can be
accessed; small tick/legend labels are contrary to the caption-as-diagnostic
habit.
- Re-check the abstract and conclusion against the grammar above.
Zhipu raw distillation excerpt
The full Zhipu output is saved separately. Key excerpt follows for auditability.
Raw Zhipu distillation
# Chuanfei Dong: Scientific Writing Style Distillation
This document provides an evidence-based distillation of Chuanfei Dong's scientific writing style based on the provided manuscript drafts (`file_21`, `file_22`) and preliminary persona notes. This analysis serves as the foundational specification for the `chuanfei-writing` LingTai skill.
***
## 1. Evidence Inventory
**Sources Used:**
* `file_21`: Single-column draft titled "First Direct Observations of Magnetic Switchbacks at Mars' Orbit". Likely an earlier or alternative formatting version.
* `file_22`: Two-column AASTeX draft (Draft version May 26, 2026) with the same title.
* `EXISTING`: A preliminary memo containing observations on manuscript style, voice, and values.
**Limitations:**
* **Scope:** Analysis is restricted strictly to the provided manuscript text. No biographical, spoken, or extra-manuscript data is available.
* **Verification:** Claims regarding "Firsts" (e.g., `file_21:L19`) cannot be verified against external literature within this context but are noted as a stylistic preference for strong framing.
* **Inconsistencies:** The source files contain internal inconsistencies (specifically regarding the event sample) which are treated as diagnostic "Red Flags" for the skill to catch.
> *"No fabricated anecdotes. If you cannot trace a claim to a source, mark it [unverified]. If you are unsure, do not include it."*
## 2. High-level Voice Model
Chuanfei Dong's writing persona is that of a **Diagnostics-First Observational Physicist**.
1. **Gap-Closure Framing:** Papers open by defining a specific, unfilled spatial or observational gap before introducing the solution (`file_21:L65-L74`; `file_22:L19-L23`).
2. **Pipeline Thinking:** Arguments are structured as a sequence of criteria or "test programs" (`file_22:L25-L28`) rather than descriptive narratives.
3. **Upstream Purity Obsession:** There is a rigorous fixation on proving the observation is "pristine" and free of local contamination before physics is discussed (`file_21:L81-L108`; `file_22:L103-L107`).
4. **Mechanism via Signatures:** Abstract mechanisms (reconnection vs. expansion) are reduced to falsifiable observables (boundary width, cross-helicity dips) (`file_21:L50-L64`).
5. **Flagship Discipline:** The argument prioritizes one "textbook" event for deep geometry analysis, while companions serve strictly as consistency checks (`file_21:L111-L188`).
6. **Quantitative Authority:** Arguments rely on specific thresholds ($90^\circ$, $d_i$, $12-16$) rather than qualitative descriptors (`file_21:L85-L96`).
## 3. Argument Grammar
The logical sequence for this manuscript type (observational discovery/mechanism test) follows a strict order:
1. **Phenomenon & Open Question:** Define switchbacks and the formation debate (Expansion vs. Reconnection).
* *Source:* `file_21:L37-L64` / `file_22:L43-L54`.
2. **The Observational Gap:** Identify the lack of data beyond 1 AU.
* *Source:* `file_21:L65-L74` / `file_22:L19-L23`.
3. **Upstream Verification:** Prove the spacecraft is in the solar wind (not magnetosheath).
* *Source:* `file_21:L81-L108` / `file_22:L103-L107`.
4. **Criteria Definition:** List specific selection filters ($\theta_{max}$, $C_B$, Walén).
* *Source:* `file_21:L85-L96` / `file_22:L85-L92`.
5. **Flagship Analysis (#02272):** Detailed hodograms, MVA, and boundary fits for the best event.
* *Source:* `file_21:L111-L188` / `file_22:L177-L240`.
6. **Companion Verification:** Confirmation that the sign of $\sigma_c$ obeys sector rules in other events.
* *Source:* `file_21:L189-L204` / `file_22:L233-L240`.
7. **Mechanism Ruling:** Interpretation of results against the predefined formation signatures.
* *Source:* `file_21:L206-L219` / `file_22:L211-L234`.
## 4. Diagnostic and Value Rules
1. **Rule: Establish Purity First.** Before discussing Alfvénicity, explicitly state spacecraft position relative to shock boundaries.
* *Evidence:* "For all three events MAVEN was well upstream..." (`file_21:L97-L98`).
2. **Rule: Strict Thresholds.** Define quantitative cut-offs (e.g., $\theta > 90^\circ$, $C_B < 0.15$) and explicitly mention when events fail.
* *Evidence:* "The remaining 62 intervals failed at least one criterion..." (`file_21:L94-L95`).
3. **Rule: MVA Reliability.** Only trust geometry when $\lambda_M / \lambda_N \gg 1$.
* *Evidence:* Restriction of geometry analysis to #02272 because companions have poorly conditioned matrices (`file_21:L154-L179`).
4. **Rule: Sign Consistency.** Alfvénic waves must obey $\text{sgn}(\sigma_c) = -\text{sgn}(B_{0,R})$.
* *Evidence:* Explicit check of this relation for toward/away sectors (`file_21:L200-L204`).
## 5. Lexical Phrase Bank
**Preferred Phrases (High Confidence):**
* "Pristine upstream solar wind" (`file_21:L22-L23`)
* "Textbook switchback" (`file_21:L122`)
* "Clean arc on the unit circle" (`file_21:L137-L144`)
* "Spherical polarization" (`file_21:L23-L24`)
* "Field-aligned elongated structure" (`file_21:L154-L161`)
* "Passes the expansion/WKB diagnostic test program" (`file_22:L211-L221`)
* "Boundary-local reconnection is not the same as reconnection as a formation mechanism" (`file_21:L216-L219`)
**Phrases to Avoid/Soften (For Revision):**
* **"Essentially undiminished":** Too strong for 3 events (`file_21:L26-L29`).
* **"Rule out":** Consider softening to "inconsistent with" or "disfavor" unless proof is absolute (`file_21:L216` vs `file_22:L221`).
* **"First":** Use only after literature verification (`file_21:L19`).
## 6. Figure/Table/Caption Style Rules
1. **Proactive Captions:** Captions must state what the figure *proves*, not just what it shows.
* *Example:* "...confirming a pristine solar-wind observation" (`file_21:L103-L108`).
2. **Panel-by-Panel Breakdown:** Captions should describe the diagnostic purpose of specific panels (e.g., "Panel D shows...").
* *Example:* `file_21:L442-L459`.
3. **Visual Proof Language:** Use phrasing like "visually indistinguishable curves indicate near-perfect Alfvénic behaviour" (`file_21:L452-L459`).
4. **Embedded Theory:** Overplot theoretical predictions (e.g., "small-amplitude Mallet et al. parabola") directly on data hodograms (`file_21:L137-L144`).
## 7. Claim-strength Calibration & Red Flags
### Critical Red Flags (Internal Inconsistencies)
1. **Event List Mismatch:**
* `file_21` uses events: #02272, #02050, **#02222** (`file_21:L95-L96`).
* `file_22` uses events: #02272, #02050, **#01974** (`file_22:L91-L93`).
* *Action:* A revision must select one consistent list.
2. **Criteria Violation (#01974 Theta):**
* The text defines strict criteria: "deflection angle $\theta_{max} > 90^\circ$" (`file_22:L85-L92`).
* Table 1 in `file_22` lists event **#01974** with $\theta_{max} = 82^\circ$ (`file_22:L126-L133`).
* *Action:* #01974 fails the stated selection criteria. It must be removed or the criteria changed (and rationale provided). `file_21` replaces it with #02222 ($104^\circ$), which is consistent.
3. **Population-level Overreach:**
* Claiming structures persist "essentially undiminished" based on 3 events is risky (`file_21:L26-L29`).
* Claiming to extend support by ">6x" in distance is a distance metric, not a statistical one (`file_22:L34-L37`).
## 8. Reusable SKILL.md Skeleton (LingTai)
```markdown
---
skill_name: chuanfei-writing
version: 1.0
description: >
Generates and reviews scientific manuscripts regarding observational
plasma physics (specifically solar wind switchbacks) in the style of
Chuanfei Dong. Enforces diagnostic-first argumentation and strict
criteria consistency.
trigger:
- "Write a switchback results section"
- "Check consistency of selection criteria"
- "Review abstract for claim strength"
---
# Chuanfei Writing Skill
## Operational Checklist
1. **Upstream Check:** Does the text establish the observation is "pristine" before physics?
2. **Criteria Consistency:** Does the event table match the selection text? (Watch for $\theta > 90^\circ$ violations).
3. **Mechanism Language:** Are mechanisms described via observables? (e.g., "$\sigma_c$ drops" instead of "turbulence increases").
4. **Flagship Focus:** Is MVA/Geometry restricted to the best-conditioned event?
5. **Claim Strength:** Are "first" claims verified? Are population claims restricted to "event-level constraints"?
## Style Rules
- Use "diagnostic pipeline" language.
- Cite specific thresholds ($90^\circ$, $C_B < 0.15$).
- Use "test program" framing.
9. Reviewing v13: Likely Mismatches
If a committee rewrites this manuscript (creating a hypothetical v13), they will likely introduce the following style violations which the chuanfei-writing skill should flag:
- Relaxed Criteria: The committee might include #01974 ($82^\circ$) because it "looks" like a switchback, ignoring the strict $>90^\circ$ rule defined in Methods (
file_22:L85-L92).
- Event List Confusion: The committee might mix the
file_21 and file_22 event lists, resulting in a Table 1 that doesn't match the text description.
- Softening Mechanism Claims: The committee might remove "rule out reconnection-driven formation" (
file_21:L26) in favor of vague language like "explores the possibility of formation mechanisms." Chuanfei's style prefers explicit falsification ("inconsistent with...").
- Missing "Purity" Arguments: The committee might drop the explicit Vignes et al. boundary checks (
file_21:L97-L108), assuming the reader trusts the data selection.
- Overstatement: The committee might allow language like "switchbacks exist everywhere" rather than Chuanfei's preferred "fill the major observational gap... at the orbit of Mars" (
file_21:L25-L29).
</details>
