Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› phg-writing-style
phg-writing-style
GitHub用于润色人文地理进展综述文章，确立以论点为导向的权威语气。强制执行SAGE哈佛引用、约8000词字数上限及100词摘要等格式规范。旨在优化行文与格式，不构建新论点，适用于定稿后的风格打磨阶段。
Trigger Scenarios
论点已确定，正在进行文本起草或修订
需要压缩超长文章以符合字数限制
撰写引导性摘要、关键词和引言
审稿人指出文章埋没论点或像文献综述
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill phg-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "phg-writing-style",
"description": "Use when polishing a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay to house style — the argument-forward review voice, SAGE Harvard referencing, the ~8,000-word inclusive cap, ~100-word unstructured abstract, and 5+ keywords. Polishes prose and format; it does not build the argument."
}
Writing Style (phg-writing-style)
A PiHG essay should read as an authoritative, argument-led intervention by someone who commands a field — not as a neutral survey and not as an empirical report. This skill sets the voice, enforces the journal's format constraints, and catches the stylistic tells that mark a piece as annotated bibliography or misfit empirical study. Apply it after the argument is built, as a polish pass.
When to trigger
- The argument is settled and you are drafting/revising prose
- Fitting an over-length essay into the short inclusive cap
- Writing the abstract, keywords, and introduction to lead with the contribution
- A reviewer said the prose "buries the argument" or "reads like a summary"
The PiHG voice
- Argument-forward. Every section advances the thesis; the reader always knows what is being argued and
why. Topic sentences state ideas, not authors (
phg-argument-synthesis). - Authoritative but fair. Command without polemic; steelman before critique (
phg-critical-intervention). - Synthetic register. Write about the field, not about each paper — cite in support of claims, in clusters, rather than walking through sources one by one.
- Conceptually clear. Define coined terms on first use; do not hide a thin argument behind dense theory vocabulary. Clarity is a marker of command, not simplicity.
- International readership. Avoid unexplained national-policy shorthand and Global-North-only framing; PiHG is read across the discipline worldwide.
Format constraints (verify on the live SAGE page)
| Item | PiHG expectation (检索于 2026-07-16；以官网为准) |
|---|---|
| Length | Review article ~4,000–8,000 words, incl. endnotes, excl. bibliography — short for a review |
| Abstract | Unstructured, ~100 words — state the intervention and agenda, not just the topic |
| Keywords | Minimum 5, as specific to the topic as possible |
| Referencing | SAGE Harvard (author–date); one consistent style throughout |
| Notes | Endnotes count toward the cap; use sparingly |
| Anonymity | Double-anonymous — no identifying self-reference in the manuscript body |
Budgeting the short cap
The 8,000-word ceiling includes endnotes. Reviews overrun because "comprehensiveness" tempts padding.
- Cut paper-by-paper walk-throughs; replace with claim-led clusters of citations.
- Move genuinely optional detail out; a review does not need a methods section or a data appendix.
- Kill throat-clearing ("It is important to note that…") and over-signposted seven-part roadmaps.
- Keep the introduction doing real work: state the debate, the intervention, and the agenda early.
The abstract in ~100 words
An unstructured 100-word abstract is tight. Spend it on the intervention, not the topic:
Weak: "This paper reviews the literature on platform labor geographies and discusses key themes."
Strong: "Geographical work on platform labor has split into parallel conversations on precarity, control,
and resistance. This essay argues they are one relation seen from different nodes of a spatial circuit,
a framing obscured by treating the platform as a bounded object. Reading across economic, urban, and
feminist geography, it proposes the circuit — not the platform — as the unit of analysis, and sets out
a research and political agenda that follows labor relations across space."
Checklist
- Argument-forward: sections and topic sentences advance the thesis, not list papers
- Contribution stated in abstract and introduction, not just the conclusion
- Within ~8,000 words including endnotes; padding and walk-throughs cut
- Abstract ~100 words, unstructured, states the intervention
- 5+ specific keywords present
- SAGE Harvard referencing, consistent; coined terms defined on first use
- No identifying self-reference (double-anonymous); international readability checked
Anti-patterns
- Prose that reads as a summary or annotated bibliography
- Burying the argument until the conclusion
- Overrunning the cap by treating "comprehensive" as the goal
- A topic-describing abstract that never states the intervention
- Non-Harvard or inconsistent referencing; undefined jargon
- An empirical-paper skeleton (methods/results) grafted onto a review
Output format
【Voice】argument-forward + synthetic + fair? [Y/N]
【Length】words incl. endnotes vs. ~8,000 cap
【Abstract】~100 words, states the intervention? [Y/N]
【Keywords】5+ specific? [Y/N]
【Style】SAGE Harvard, consistent; jargon defined? [Y/N]
【Next】phg-submission
Supplementary resources
../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md— before→after introduction in PiHG voice../../resources/official-source-map.md— caps, abstract, keywords, and style, with 待核实 markers
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 17:22
