Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› mind-literature-positioning
mind-literature-positioning
GitHub针对《Mind》期刊，指导作者将论文论点精准定位到现有哲学文献的活跃辩论中。强调攻击最强版本、避免稻草人谬误，并精确区分自身贡献与邻近观点，以满足专家审稿人的高要求。
Trigger Scenarios
撰写或修改引言及核心贡献段落
被指出攻击稻草人或忽视既有文献
需区分论点与最接近的现有立场
确定定义辩论的关键人物与文献
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill mind-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "mind-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when positioning a Mind article against the existing philosophical literature so the thesis reads as a genuine move in a live debate. Mind readers are expert across analytic philosophy, so the paper must engage the canonical and current statements of the view it targets, not a strawman. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the literature section for you."
}
Literature Positioning (mind-literature-positioning)
A Mind paper earns its place by making a move in an ongoing debate. Positioning is not throat-clearing — it shows the reader (and the referee) the exact disagreement you enter and why your thesis matters. Mind referees are specialists; engaging a weak or dated version of your target view is the fastest route to rejection.
When to trigger
- Drafting or revising the introduction and the "what I add" paragraph
- A reader said you "attack a strawman" or "ignore the obvious reply already in the literature"
- You need to distinguish your thesis from the closest existing positions
- Choosing which figures and papers actually define the debate you enter
How Mind wants the literature engaged
- Enter a live debate, not a citation pile. Identify the specific disagreement or open puzzle your thesis addresses, and the works that constitute it (the canonical statement plus the strongest current defenders).
- Target the strongest version. Engage the best, most charitable formulation of the view you oppose — ideally its proponents' own words. Refuting a weak version persuades no one.
- Name the gap precisely. Not "little has been said" — say what is conflated, assumed without argument, or left unexplained, and why your thesis fixes it.
- State your move as a position in the debate. "X is standardly held because of argument A; A fails / equivocates / overgeneralizes; so X should be replaced by X′."
- Place the closest competitor. Identify the nearest existing view and say exactly how yours differs — referees will ask "isn't this just Y's position?"
Engaging across the field (Mind is general)
| If your thesis is in… | also engage… |
|---|---|
| a narrow technical debate | the broader question it bears on, so a generalist sees the stakes |
| philosophy of language/logic | the metaphysical or epistemic upshot, where relevant |
| philosophy of mind | the empirical-adjacent work only as it bears on the philosophical claim |
| history of philosophy | the contemporary debate the reading illuminates, where applicable |
Anti-patterns
- A "literature dump" with no organizing disagreement
- Attacking a strawman or an outdated formulation of the target view
- Hiding the nearest competing position, or claiming false novelty ("first to argue")
- Self-citation that breaks anonymity (Mind is triple-anonymous — see
mind-submission)
Positioning pass for Mind
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the target thesis, argument map, objection sequence, and dialectical payoff; then test whether the manuscript addresses analytic-philosophy reviewers who expect a precise thesis, live objection, argument structure, and contribution to an active debate.
- Primary move: Map incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, this manuscript's delta, and the sibling-venue omission a referee might notice.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next editrows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly. - Neighbor test: compare against Philosophical Review for broader top philosophy, Nous for analytic breadth, Ethics for normative/political theory; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.mdfor volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Debate】the live disagreement / puzzle you enter
【Key works】the 3–6 that define it (canonical + strongest current)
【Target view】the best version of what you oppose
【Gap】what is conflated / assumed / unexplained
【Move】how your thesis changes the debate
【Closest competitor】and how yours differs
【Next】mind-thesis-and-argument
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— PhilPapers, SEP, JSTOR for finding the defining works../../resources/official-source-map.md— Mind scope and quality-only criterion
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:05
