Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› ci-scholarly-positioning
ci-scholarly-positioning
GitHub用于将批判性探究论文置于跨学科对话中，明确其介入的理论辩论与精确位置。适用于选题后、论证需澄清 stakes 或涉及多领域时。通过识别争论点、对手观点及干预收益，提供结构化评审而非写作建议，确保论文在人文领域具有实质性理论贡献。
Trigger Scenarios
选题后定义进入的学术对话
读者质疑论文的理论 stakes 或论辩对象
论文涉及多个领域需确定核心辩论
撰写针对特定先前 CI 作品的批判性回应
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ci-scholarly-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ci-scholarly-positioning",
"description": "Use to situate a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay within the conversations it enters across the arts and humanities. CI is interdisciplinary, so positioning means naming the critical and theoretical debates the essay joins — across literature, art, film, philosophy, politics, history — and the precise place where it intervenes, not a discipline-internal literature review. Frames the stakes; it does not write the prose."
}
Scholarly Positioning (ci-scholarly-positioning)
A CI essay enters a conversation, not a "literature." Positioning means naming the debate(s) the essay joins — which may run across several fields — and locating the exact point where your intervention bites. This is not a social-science literature review and not a dutiful survey; it is the argumentative map that shows why the field needs this essay now.
When to trigger
- After topic selection, to define whose conversation you are entering
- The argument is strong but readers ask "what's at stake / who are you arguing with?"
- The essay touches several fields and you must decide which debates to foreground
- A Critical Response that must engage a specific prior CI piece precisely
How CI positioning differs
- Conversations, not literatures. Identify the debate — a concept under dispute, a reading that has hardened into orthodoxy, a method whose limits are showing — and name its principals.
- Interdisciplinary, but disciplined. Reach across fields where the stakes genuinely cross, but do not sprinkle citations from five fields to look broad. Engage what your argument moves.
- Theory as interlocutor. The relevant "prior work" often includes theoretical texts (Foucault,
Benjamin, Sedgwick) as live interlocutors, not just secondary criticism (see
ci-theory-and-method). - CI's own thread. Where possible, connect to debates CI itself has hosted — the journal is a continuing conversation, and Critical Responses extend it directly.
Map the intervention
- The standing view — what most readers in the relevant conversation currently assume.
- The pressure point — the assumption, gap, or contradiction your essay presses on.
- Your move — reconceive / complicate / overturn / synthesize / historicize — name it.
- The payoff — what becomes thinkable once the move lands.
Engage generously, then turn
- Represent interlocutors at their strongest before you press; CI readers know the field.
- Quote precisely and cite in Chicago notes (see
ci-citation-and-style). - Turn the engagement into your claim — do not let the survey become the essay.
Anti-patterns
- A "lit review" paragraph that lists names without staging a real disagreement
- Strawmanning the view you overturn (CI reviewers are often its authors)
- Borrowing breadth by citing fields the argument never touches
- Treating theorists as ornaments rather than positions you argue with
Operating pass for Critical Inquiry
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the object, theoretical stakes, interpretive turn, and permission/citation discipline; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: humanities reviewers who expect a strong interpretive intervention rather than an empirical-results narrative.
- Do the pass: Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger rather than a prose-only diagnosis; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript locationrows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue. - Sibling guard: compare against PMLA for literary-field reach, New Literary History for theory/history, Representations for historically grounded cultural analysis; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.mdhas been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Conversation(s)】the debate(s) entered, across which field(s)
【Standing view】what readers currently assume
【Pressure point】the assumption you press on
【Move】reconceive / complicate / overturn / synthesize / historicize
【Payoff】what becomes thinkable
【Next】ci-argument-and-intervention
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— theory shelf and where to find primary and critical sources../../resources/official-source-map.md— CI scope and interdisciplinary remit
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:49
