argument-governance
SolidBuild and audit the manuscript or research-project argument system across intended use, gaps, claims, data, results, experiment roles, contributions, innovation evidence, limitations, and contribution focus. Use when a paper, thesis chapter, review article, or research project needs an explicit argument map, evidence-fit or over/under-balance checks, analysis admission, contribution prioritisation, innovation-evidence checks, or a decision about whether the current emphasis should change; also use for Chinese requests such as 梳理研究项目、研究主线、贡献侧重、创新证据、结果是否支撑论点、主实验与辅助分析、内容或证据是否过多或过少.
Install
Quality Score: 83/100
Skill Content
Details
- Author
- yha9806
- Repository
- yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit
- Created
- 5 months ago
- Last Updated
- 3 days ago
- Language
- Python
- License
- MIT
Similar Skills
Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category
peer-review
Review another author's manuscript, paper, thesis chapter, proposal, or preprint as an external reviewer. Use when asked to evaluate novelty, significance, gap-contribution fit, claim-evidence adequacy, methods, evaluation, overclaim risks, structure, writing, required revisions, or recommendation without rewriting the manuscript or using private author context.
self-review
Review the user's own manuscript, paper, thesis chapter, rebuttal, or release packet with clean-room anti-contamination controls and, when needed, an unfamiliar-reader comprehension gate. Use for internal review, readiness checks, reviewer simulation, or claim-evidence self-audit where prior chat memory and unstated context must not become evidence.
codex-debate
Structured adversarial debate with Codex (GPT via the Codex CLI plugin) over a technical position — a design decision, architecture choice, root-cause hypothesis, migration plan, review finding, or "should we do X or Y". Codex first gives a blind independent take, then both sides exchange evidence-cited claims for bounded rounds, positions change only for new evidence, and the run ends with a written ruling, a claim ledger, and every concession on record. Use when asked to debate, challenge, stress-test, red-team, pressure-test, or get Codex to argue against a plan, decision, hypothesis, or approach; to settle a technical disagreement; or for a cross-model second opinion on a non-PR question. Not for reviewing a PR or diff (use two-model-pr-review) and never for implementing changes.