Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› revedres-writing-style
revedres-writing-style
GitHub用于撰写或修改符合《教育研究评论》(RER)标准的学术文本。聚焦APA 7格式与综合综述风格，避免逐篇总结。涵盖引言架构、段落合成技巧及摘要规范，确保对广泛读者具有权威性和批判性。
Trigger Scenarios
需要匹配RER期刊风格的正文修订
草稿呈现逐篇研究而非跨研究综合
摘要超过150词或类似原始研究
引言未突出贡献或过度提示
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill revedres-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "revedres-writing-style",
"description": "Use when drafting or revising prose, the 150-word abstract, and the introduction in the Review of Educational Research (RER) synthesizing voice and APA 7 style. Lands the integrative voice; it does not build the analytic spine (revedres-organizing-framework) or design exhibits (revedres-tables-figures)."
}
Writing Style (revedres-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The framework and exhibits are settled and the prose needs to match the RER bar
- A draft summarizes study-by-study instead of synthesizing across studies
- The abstract is over 150 words or reads like a primary-research abstract
- The introduction buries the contribution or over-signposts
The RER voice: synthesize, do not summarize, for a broad education audience
RER is read across education and adjacent disciplines, not by one method club. The voice is comprehensive, critical, and integrative: authoritative about the field, fair to every camp, and accessible to a reader who does not already know this literature. The single most-punished move is prose that walks through one study per paragraph — "Smith (2019) found… Jones (2020) found…" — which is summary, not synthesis. Instead, organize paragraphs around claims, constructs, and tensions, citing clusters of studies as evidence for each.
The introduction arc
The opening should, in order:
- Frame the field and the problem — what is at stake for learning, instruction, policy, or equity (in plain terms, for a broad reader).
- Establish the need for a synthesis now — the growth, method shift, conflict, or missing frame that makes this the moment (the
revedres-topic-selection"why now"). - State the organizing question and the framework — the spine that is the contribution (
revedres-organizing-framework), named up front. - State the bottom line early — what the integrated literature shows and what remains open; do not withhold it to the conclusion.
- Brief roadmap — mirror the framework's cells, without over-signposting.
Synthesis-craft at the paragraph level
- Topic sentence = a claim about the field, then studies as support — not "Author X did Y."
- Reconcile, don't tally. When studies conflict, explain why (estimand, design, population), per
revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance. - Carry credibility in the prose. "Two well-identified experiments… whereas weaker correlational work…" — weight, don't count.
- Steelman before critiquing. Give each perspective its strongest case before its limits.
- Critical, not neutral. RER wants critical synthesis: judge the field's methods and assumptions, name what it gets wrong, and label your own read.
RER house style (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
- APA 7th edition throughout — citations, references, headings, tables, figures, and bias-free language.
- Abstract ≤ 150 words, with keywords; written as a review abstract (question → corpus/method → what the synthesis shows → implications), not a single-study abstract.
- Masked manuscript: a blinded title page in the main file; no identifying self-references in the body (anonymize only limited-circulation self-citations — keep ordinary published self-citations visible). See
revedres-submission. - Microsoft Word (not PDF); separate unblinded title page with APA-7 Author Note; Author Bios.
Checklist
- Paragraphs organized around claims/constructs/tensions, not one-study-per-paragraph
- Conflicting findings reconciled (why they differ), not vote-counted
- Credibility carried in the prose (weight by design quality, not count)
- Each perspective steelmanned before critique; author's own read labeled
- Introduction follows frame → why-now → spine → bottom-line-early → roadmap
- Abstract ≤ 150 words, review-style, with keywords
- APA 7 throughout (citations, references, headings, bias-free language)
- Manuscript masked correctly (blinded body; only limited-circulation self-cites anonymized)
Anti-patterns
- "Smith found… Jones found…" study-by-study march (summary, not synthesis)
- Withholding the bottom line until the conclusion (RER readers want it up front)
- A 250-word abstract or one written like a single-study report
- Neutral cataloguing with no critical judgment of the field's methods or assumptions
- Over-signposting ("In this section we will…") doing the work the argument should do
- Non-APA-7 citations/headings, or a draft that de-anonymizes the authors in the body
Output format
【Synthesis test】paragraphs by claim/construct/tension (not per-study)? Y/N
【Conflict handling】reconciled, not tallied? Y/N
【Intro arc】frame → why-now → spine → bottom-line-early → roadmap? Y/N
【Critical stance】field's methods/assumptions judged; author read labeled? Y/N
【Abstract】≤150 words, review-style, keywords? Y/N
【APA 7】citations/refs/headings/bias-free language conform? Y/N
【Masking】body blinded; only limited-circulation self-cites anonymized? Y/N
【Next step】→ revedres-transparency-and-reproducibility (coding reliability, open materials, MARS/PRISMA)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:23
