菜单
Use when a researcher has an approved argument map, source-grounded notes, interpretations, and draft passages that need organization and logical repair without delegating the original scholarly contribution to the agent.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
Use when citations, quotations, page numbers, bibliography entries, or source-supported claims must be checked for existence, metadata accuracy, textual fidelity, and claim–source fit.
Use when a manuscript contains recurring concepts, translations, abbreviations, proper names, or near-synonyms whose meanings and forms must remain stable across the argument.
Use when a humanities researcher needs to transform verified sources into a structured scholarly conversation rather than a chronological list of summaries.
Use when a humanities researcher has a broad topic, intuition, corpus, or problem but does not yet have a precise, contestable, and researchable question.
Use when a humanities argument depends on a concept whose history, competing definitions, translations, or boundaries must be reconstructed before the concept can support new claims.
Use when an interpretation must be grounded in specific textual, visual, rhetorical, formal, interface, archival, performative, or material features rather than thematic summary or theoretical labeling.
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | structuring-humanities-argument |
| description | Use when a researcher has an approved argument map, source-grounded notes, interpretations, and draft passages that need organization and logical repair without delegating the original scholarly contribution to the agent. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| language | en |
| license | MIT |
Organize researcher-provided intellectual material into a coherent section or manuscript while preserving provenance, uncertainty, and authorial responsibility. This skill repairs sequence, paragraph function, transitions, redundancy, and missing warrants; it is not a ghostwriting license.
Accepts
Requires
Produces
May produce
FAIL when the requested contribution would need to be invented.Fails when
Guarantees
Does not guarantee
Use after planning-humanities-argument and source-grounded analysis. Use when notes are rich but unordered, when paragraphs lack functions, when transitions conceal logical gaps, or when revisions require moving, compressing, or splitting material.
Do not use from a title alone. Do not ask this skill to simulate a personal voice, hide AI involvement, invent a theoretical contribution, or create citations to support missing claims.
Collect:
Identify each input’s provenance before restructuring.
Classify supplied items as claim, evidence, quotation, paraphrase, observation, interpretation, inference, context, transition, or unresolved note. Mark uncertain provenance immediately.
Assign each item to a claim and section function. Place unmatched material in Surplus / unresolved placement rather than forcing it into the draft.
For each paragraph define:
Function
+ Claim
+ Evidence
+ Analysis
+ Warrant
+ Link forward
Not every paragraph needs all elements, but every paragraph needs a declared function and relation to the argument.
The agent may propose order, signposting, compression, and explicit warrants already latent in supplied material. When a transition requires a new substantive claim, insert [AUTHOR DECISION REQUIRED] rather than supplying it as fact.
Order paragraphs by inferential need: definition before application, observation before interpretation, evidence before generalization, objection before qualified conclusion. Preserve deliberate nonlinear form only when its epistemic purpose is stated.
Distinguish productive recurrence from redundancy. Consolidate repeated definitions and claims, but preserve repeated textual features when repetition is itself evidence.
Use:
[EVIDENCE NEEDED][WARRANT NEEDED][CONTEXT VERIFICATION NEEDED][AUTHOR DECISION REQUIRED][TERMINOLOGY DECISION REQUIRED][CITATION VERIFICATION NEEDED]Markers must not be silently removed during polishing.
Do not upgrade hypothesis to conclusion, interpretation to fact, or researcher-supplied context to verified history. Retain disagreement and qualification.
For each substantial block record whether it was retained, reordered, compressed, lightly edited, paraphrased from supplied text, or newly proposed as connective language. Do not claim exact authorship attribution when collaboration is entangled; state the limits.
Check for evidence dumps, theory-name paragraphs, unearned conclusions, delayed definitions, and transitions that merely announce topic changes. Verify that each paragraph advances, qualifies, supports, or tests a claim.
Return PASS only when the requested unit is structurally coherent and no blocking authorship or evidence gap remains. Return CONDITIONAL PASS when visible non-blocking markers remain. Return FAIL when original contribution or evidence would need invention.
Stop when:
Complete only when:
## Structural plan
Target unit:
Primary function:
Claims advanced:
## Revised structure or draft
[Use provenance and gap markers inline.]
## Surplus / unresolved placement
## Provenance note
Retained:
Reordered:
Compressed:
Paraphrased from supplied material:
Agent-proposed connective language:
Limits of attribution:
## Gate report
Gate: Argument-structuring gate
Status: PASS | CONDITIONAL PASS | FAIL
Evidence checked:
Blocking issues:
Non-blocking risks:
Researcher decisions required:
Required next action:
Next skill: stress-testing-argument
Reorganize these researcher-written notes and verified passages according to the approved argument map. Mark missing warrants and distinguish all newly proposed connective language.
Write my original theoretical contribution in my personal style from this title and make the citations look complete.
The bad invocation delegates authorship and requests deceptive completion.
stress-testing-argument to expose structural and substantive vulnerabilities.checking-terminology-consistency after the sequence stabilizes.reviewing-manuscript for whole-manuscript evaluation.The boundary between legitimate structuring assistance and substantive co-authorship varies by institution, venue, and research culture. Researchers must follow applicable disclosure and authorship policies. Provenance notes improve transparency but cannot reconstruct every micro-level contribution with certainty.