argument-governance
De la autor
Build 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.
Instalare
npx skills add yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit --skill argument-governance -a claude-code
Se instalează în .claude/skills/argument-governance/ · Fiecare comandă descarcă skill-ul direct de pe GitHub cu utilitarul open source skills.
Identic octet cu octet cu commit-ul scanat, cu licența depozitului și un fișier SOURCE.txt.
Vrei ca agentul să-ți propună skill-uri în timp ce scrii? Vezi cum folosești skill-urile din IDE.
Verificări de siguranță pe SKILL.md
- Include scripturi pe care nu le-am verificatScăzut
De ce 76
aiqbench calculează scorul de încredere din semnale publice. Nu este un audit de securitate, așa că citește un skill înainte să-l instalezi.
Skill-uri similare
Cele mai apropiate de acesta prin ce fac și când sunt folosite.
- evidence-reviewyha9806/academic-writing-toolkitBuild evidence-controlled literature reviews and gap maps with source-status labels, claim registers, citation-role plans, traceability tables, and overclaim audits. Use when drafting or auditing review papers, thesis literature reviews, scoping reviews, or evidence syntheses where adjacent-domain evidence, candidate records, unpublished work, and unsupported claims must be kept separate.Inginerie★ 50
- peer-reviewforyourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-SkillsStructured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.Inginerie★ 3.8K
- narrative-buildingscdenney/open-science-skillsDrafts or audits a scientific paper’s introduction and framing — the real-world "why", an evidence audit, the funnel from theory to a falsifiable if-then with a named estimand, bridges across experiments, and a contribution list matched to the design. Use when the user asks to write, restructure, or critique an introduction, motivate or frame a paper, repair a gap-in-the-literature opening, sharpen or calibrate a contribution claim, or connect experiments into one argument. Sentence-level flow and wording are out of scope.Design★ 69
- literature-reviewscdenney/open-science-skillsBuilds or audits a literature review: evidence map, closest prior work, gap verdict, and synthesis plan. Use to check whether a contribution is novel, map what a literature establishes, or organize a review; systematic reviews get a protocol scaffold.Inginerie★ 69
- research-architect-auditmmTheBest/Research-ArchitectUse when reviewing, revising, or deciding whether to complete a Research Architect draft, especially when its reference adaptation, design, evidence, citations, claim boundaries, copying risk, or missing upstream artifacts need an auditable diagnosis.Știință★ 69
- build-evidence-mapgithub/awesome-copilotBuild an auditable evidence map for a contested technical choice, research synthesis, proposal review, or consequential decision. Use when Copilot must preserve supporting, contradicting, qualifying, and missing evidence with exact source regions instead of collapsing disagreement into prose.Știință★ 40.4K
Note și recenzii
—
nicio recenzie
Ai încercat acest skill? Notează-l ca să-i ajuți pe alții. Autentifică-te
Discuție
Intră în discuție. Autentifică-te