logic-review
Review stable chapter or manuscript drafts for paragraph flow, transitions, argument continuity, and repeated rhetorical functions before editing. Use after the author-approved spine is stable; route structural drift back to thesis-control.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit/tree/main/archive/skills/logic-review
claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install yha9806-academic-writing-toolkit@llmmart
git clone https://github.com/yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit.git
The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.
Skill manifest
/logic-review — Paragraph Logic Review
Purpose
Find paragraphs that may need a topic sentence, a clearer transition, merging, re-ordering, or removal of duplicated argumentative work. The deterministic script flags mechanical candidates; the agent separately reviews rhetorical functions without redefining the manuscript spine.
Trigger Words
This skill activates on: logic review, flow check, paragraph logic, /logic-review.
Workflow
- Run:
python3 scripts/audit-logic.py --base-dir . --json - Confirm that the research object, core question, intended use, primary
experiment, headline claim, and evidence boundary are stable under the
active
/thesis-controlcontract. If they are not, stop the language pass and route the issue to drift control or revision escalation. - Read the flagged paragraphs and nearby context.
- Label each relevant sentence or paragraph by its main function:
problem,gap,method,evidence,interpretation,boundary, ortransition. - Flag duplicated functions and monotonous sequences, especially repeated
evidence -> disclaimerendings. Prefer deleting or consolidating repeated argumentative work over generating synonymous wording. - Check boundary placement. Scope must remain aligned across the paper, but full limitation prose need not be repeated after every result. Preserve essential local qualifiers and concentrate fuller study-boundary language in the abstract ending, Methods boundary, Discussion/Limitations, and conclusion when appropriate.
- Present a numbered review table with location, function, issue type, why it matters, and a proposed edit.
- Wait for user approval before editing chapter files.
- Apply only approved edits, then re-run the audit.
Constraints
- Never auto-fix chapter logic without user approval.
- Preserve the author's argument and section structure.
- Keep edits local to the flagged paragraph unless the user approves a broader rewrite.
- Do not use a logic or style pass to repair an unstable research question, evidence chain, application purpose, or contribution order.
- No emoji.
Files (academic-writing-toolkit)
-
SKILL.md 2.4 KB
--- name: logic-review description: Review stable chapter or manuscript drafts for paragraph flow, transitions, argument continuity, and repeated rhetorical functions before editing. Use after the author-approved spine is stable; route structural drift back to thesis-control. allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Bash, Edit --- # /logic-review — Paragraph Logic Review ## Purpose Find paragraphs that may need a topic sentence, a clearer transition, merging, re-ordering, or removal of duplicated argumentative work. The deterministic script flags mechanical candidates; the agent separately reviews rhetorical functions without redefining the manuscript spine. ## Trigger Words This skill activates on: `logic review`, `flow check`, `paragraph logic`, `/logic-review`. ## Workflow 1. Run: `python3 scripts/audit-logic.py --base-dir . --json` 2. Confirm that the research object, core question, intended use, primary experiment, headline claim, and evidence boundary are stable under the active `/thesis-control` contract. If they are not, stop the language pass and route the issue to drift control or revision escalation. 3. Read the flagged paragraphs and nearby context. 4. Label each relevant sentence or paragraph by its main function: `problem`, `gap`, `method`, `evidence`, `interpretation`, `boundary`, or `transition`. 5. Flag duplicated functions and monotonous sequences, especially repeated `evidence -> disclaimer` endings. Prefer deleting or consolidating repeated argumentative work over generating synonymous wording. 6. Check boundary placement. Scope must remain aligned across the paper, but full limitation prose need not be repeated after every result. Preserve essential local qualifiers and concentrate fuller study-boundary language in the abstract ending, Methods boundary, Discussion/Limitations, and conclusion when appropriate. 7. Present a numbered review table with location, function, issue type, why it matters, and a proposed edit. 8. Wait for user approval before editing chapter files. 9. Apply only approved edits, then re-run the audit. ## Constraints 1. Never auto-fix chapter logic without user approval. 2. Preserve the author's argument and section structure. 3. Keep edits local to the flagged paragraph unless the user approves a broader rewrite. 4. Do not use a logic or style pass to repair an unstable research question, evidence chain, application purpose, or contribution order. 5. No emoji.
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation.
Reviews (0)
No reviews yet.
No comments yet.