Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› humrel-writing-style
humrel-writing-style
GitHub用于润色《人力资源管理》期刊稿件的叙事与文风。在理论确定后，将平铺直叙或晦涩的文稿转化为反思性、理论驱动且可读性强的学术风格。优化结构以突出谜题与洞察，精简语言，确保符合1.3万字限制及摘要规范，不改变原有分析内容。
Trigger Scenarios
定稿阶段需提升HR期刊风格的写作质感
文稿技术正确但枯燥、术语堆砌或难以理解
审稿人批评写作过于密集或不清晰
需要压缩至13000字以内或撰写100-200词摘要
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill humrel-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "humrel-writing-style",
"description": "Use when polishing full-manuscript prose and narrative craft on a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — the reflexive, theoretically-engaged HR voice, intro\/abstract, and structure within the 13k cap. Polishes the writing; it does not change the theory or analysis."
}
Writing Style & Craft (humrel-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The theory and analysis are settled and the prose needs to reach HR's register
- The draft is technically correct but flat, jargon-heavy, or hard to follow
- A process/critical study is written in dead "variance-speak"
- A reviewer praises the idea but calls the writing "dense," "unclear," or "undertheorized in places"
- You are tightening to the 13,000-word cap or writing the 100–200 word abstract
The HR register: reflexive and theoretically engaged
HR prose is scholarly, theoretically engaged, and socially aware — closer to the reflexive register of European organizational social science than to the terse hypothesis-report style. The writing should make the social-theoretical argument visible throughout, keep the human relations at the centre, and (in qualitative/critical work) acknowledge the author's situatedness without lapsing into confession. It is theory-led but readable: a smart reader from sociology, psychology, or organization studies should follow the argument and feel its stakes.
The narrative arc
- Open with the puzzle. The first page should make a smart reader curious about a tension in working life — the anomaly, not a literature catalogue.
- Build tension, then resolution. The paper travels from puzzle → why existing theory falls short → your insight → evidence → reframing.
- Foreground theory throughout. The theoretical thread is visible in every section, not only intro and discussion.
- Earn the surprise. Set up the prior carefully so the reader feels the reversal.
- Close on generativity. End by opening new questions for the social study of work, not by restating findings.
Prose discipline
- Plain, precise English. Concrete verbs, clear subjects; cut nominalizations ("the operationalization of the conceptualization…").
- Define jargon once, then use it consistently. Do not stack neologisms — common at theory-heavy venues and punished when it obscures rather than clarifies.
- One idea per paragraph, with a topic sentence carrying the argument.
- Process voice for process theory: events, sequences, becoming, unfolding, contestation — do not flatten a relational process into "factor A raised outcome B."
Qualitative & critical craft
- Weave informant voice into the analysis; quotes should advance the argument, not decorate it.
- Show enough of the field to make the setting vivid and the inference credible — but keep analytic distance; vivid, not journalistic.
- Make reflexivity methodologically meaningful: how your standpoint shaped access and interpretation.
The intro, abstract, and the word budget
- Write the introduction and abstract last, once the contribution is fixed. The abstract is 100–200 words (检索于 2026-06) and must state, without jargon, the topic/question, approach, and theoretical contribution; supply keywords as key phrases (e.g. "identity work," not "identity").
- The 13,000-word total cap includes references and appendices — cut the literature tour, not the argument. If you are over, trim positioning and redundant robustness prose before cutting analytic depth.
- Keep the manuscript anonymized: no first-person self-citation that reveals authorship, no live URLs, no identifying acknowledgements (double-anonymous review).
Checklist
- Opens with a puzzle about working life, not a literature dump
- A single, traceable theoretical thread runs through every section
- The surprise is set up so the reader feels the reversal
- Jargon defined once and used consistently; nominalizations cut
- Process/critical papers written in process voice, not variance-speak
- Qualitative: informant voice advances the argument; reflexivity is meaningful
- Abstract 100–200 words, jargon-free, states the theoretical contribution; key-phrase keywords
- Within the 13k total cap; manuscript fully anonymized
Anti-patterns
- "Lab-report" prose: mechanical, voiceless, no narrative tension
- Front-loading the literature so the puzzle never lands
- Jargon stacking and undefined neologisms (theoretical-sounding but empty)
- Variance-speak imposed on a process/relational phenomenon
- Quote-dumping with no analytic threading
- A discussion that restates results instead of opening questions
- Author-revealing traces left in a double-anonymous draft
Output format
【Journal】Human Relations
【Skill】humrel-writing-style
【Narrative arc】puzzle → tension → insight → evidence → generativity (status)
【Theoretical thread】visible throughout? (yes/no)
【Voice】process / variance — matches phenomenon?
【Abstract】100–200 words, jargon-free, contribution stated? (yes/no)
【Budget + anonymity】within 13k; no author tells (yes/no)
【Next skill】humrel-submission
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:18
