Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› curranthro-writing-style
curranthro-writing-style
GitHub用于撰写或润色《当代人类学》(CA) 稿件，确保语言清晰包容、无过多行话，适配全球读者。严格遵循芝加哥作者-日期格式及各类文章字数上限（如主文6000-10000字），强化核心论点并精简篇幅，不虚构内容。
Trigger Scenarios
起草引言、阐述干预措施或进行最终润色
超出字数限制需删减而不失论点或民族志细节
撰写不超过200字的摘要
提交前对齐引用格式以符合CA风格
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill curranthro-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "curranthro-writing-style",
"description": "Use when drafting or polishing a Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript so it reads across all subfields for a worldwide audience, follows CA house style (free-format accepted; final files use Chicago author-date), fits the article-type word caps (Major Article 6,000–10,000 words; Report 3,000–5,000; abstract ≤ 200 words), and uses clear, jargon-light, inclusive language. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content."
}
Writing Style (curranthro-writing-style)
A CA paper must be readable by an anthropologist outside its subfield and by CA's worldwide audience, written with a clear argument and a reflexive voice, formatted to Chicago author-date in final files, and disciplined to the article type's word cap. Because a Major Article anchors the CA✩ Treatment, the prose must make the intervention unmissable — commentators and the editor should be able to state your claim in one sentence. CA explicitly discourages overuse of jargon and asks that main ideas be comprehensible to nonspecialists.
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction, framing the intervention, or final polish
- Over the word cap and needing to cut without losing the argument or the ethnography
- Writing the ≤ 200-word abstract
- Aligning citations/format to CA house style before submission
Reach all subfields (and the world)
- Front-load the intervention. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, the argument, the evidence, and why it matters to anthropology broadly — don't make a generalist dig.
- Minimize subfield jargon or define it on first use; an archaeologist should follow a linguistic paper. Spell out acronyms; gloss technical terms. (CA explicitly discourages jargon.)
- Comprehensible to nonspecialists. CA asks that main ideas be legible to readers outside the subfield — a desk-screen and CA✩ requirement, since commentators come from across the discipline.
- Argument-first, but keep the craft. Lead with claims; let well-chosen scenes and evidence carry them. Avoid both dry report prose and description with no argument.
- Write with care. Use inclusive language; represent interlocutors and communities with dignity (avoid deficit framing); consider citational politics in who you cite and foreground.
Format to CA house style
- Citations: CA (with UChicago Press) accepts free-format submissions; final accepted files use Chicago Manual of Style author-date, with references listed alphabetically and not embedded in endnotes. Include DOIs where available. Manage with Zotero/BibTeX.
- Abstract: ≤ 200 words for Major Articles and Reports.
- Preparation: word-processing file (
.doc/.rtf, not PDF); commonly 12-point, double-spaced; endnotes (not embedded references). Figures supplied separately (seecurranthro-tables-figures). - Review note: confirm the current review-anonymity expectation before deciding how to handle
self-references (see
curranthro-review-process/curranthro-submission).
Fit the word cap
- Major Article 6,000–10,000 words (incl. references and endnotes); Report 3,000–5,000 words (incl. refs/notes); Discussion/Comment ≤ 800 words including references.
- Tighten throat-clearing and literature dumps; engage the conversation, not every paper
(see
curranthro-literature-positioning). - Choose the scenes and exhibits that argue; cut redundant description. Endnotes count toward the limit — keep them lean.
- If the piece is short and sharp, target a Report rather than padding toward a Major Article.
Anti-patterns
- A subfield-insider intro that never states the all-fields intervention
- Burying the contribution under pages of description before the argument appears
- Heavy jargon (CA explicitly discourages it) or ideas a nonspecialist cannot follow
- An abstract over 200 words or one that hides the finding
- References embedded in endnotes, or a reference list not alphabetized, in final files
- Padding a Report toward Major-Article length (or vice versa, cramming a field-shaping argument into a Report)
Output format
【Intervention stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads across subfields / comprehensible to nonspecialists?】jargon defined / acronyms spelled? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (≤ 200)
【Word count】Major Article 6,000–10,000 / Report 3,000–5,000 (incl. refs/notes)?
【Chicago author-date + alphabetized + DOIs (final files)】[Y/N]
【Care-ful, inclusive language】[Y/N]
【Next】curranthro-transparency-and-data
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— word/abstract caps, Chicago author-date, jargon/nonspecialist guidance../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md— before→after CA-style introduction
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:50
