Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› mind-structure-and-exposition
mind-structure-and-exposition
GitHub用于在约8000字限制内优化哲学文章结构，确保论点清晰有序。涵盖引言、设定、论证、反驳及结论的架构设计，强调前置核心主张、合理排列前提与反驳，并指导结构性删减以符合字数要求。
触发场景
文章逻辑正确但行文散漫或读者难以定位论点
需要决定章节顺序或反驳部分的放置位置
文章超字数且需进行结构性而非单纯删词的精简
撰写引言路线图或结论部分
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill mind-structure-and-exposition -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "mind-structure-and-exposition",
"description": "Use when organizing a Mind article so the argument unfolds in the clearest possible order within the ~8,000-word limit. The job is architecture, not prose polish — a roadmap, the right order of premises, signposting, and a conclusion that claims exactly what was earned. Structures the paper; it does not write the sentences (see mind-writing-style)."
}
Structure & Exposition (mind-structure-and-exposition)
A Mind reader should never be lost about what is being claimed, why, and where they are. A strong
argument poorly arranged reads as confused; the same argument well arranged reads as inevitable. This
skill is about architecture — the order in which the thesis, premises, objections, and replies
appear — within the ~8,000-word article limit. (Sentence-level polish is mind-writing-style.)
When to trigger
- The argument is sound but the draft "wanders" or reviewers "can't find the thesis"
- Deciding the order of sections, and where objections should go
- Over the word limit and needing to cut structurally, not just trim words
- Writing the introduction's roadmap or the conclusion
A reliable shape for a Mind article
- Introduction — state the thesis and why it matters in the opening paragraphs; sketch the argument; give a short roadmap. A Mind reader should know your claim by the end of page one.
- Setup — fix terminology and the target view (from
mind-literature-positioningandmind-conceptual-analysis-and-method) only as far as the argument needs. - The argument — present the premises in the order that makes the inference feel forced; defend the load-bearing premise where the reader most needs it.
- Objections and replies — place each objection where it naturally arises, or gather them in a
dedicated section. Answer the strongest one visibly (see
mind-objections-and-replies). - Conclusion — restate what was established (and only that), note scope, and gesture at the upshot. Do not introduce a new argument here.
Exposition discipline
- Front-load the thesis. Do not make the reader excavate it. The contribution belongs in the intro.
- One idea per section; signpost transitions. Say what each section does before doing it.
- Order premises for the reader, not the discovery. The sequence in which you found the argument is rarely the clearest sequence to present it.
- Put objections where they bite, not all dumped at the end as an afterthought.
- Move the inessential out. Long ancillary proofs or tangents can go to a footnote or appendix — but the core argument must stand in the main text.
Fit the ~8,000-word limit
- Cut throat-clearing, literature dumps, and re-explanation of well-known views.
- Each paragraph should advance the argument; delete any that only decorates it.
- Tighten or fold footnotes — digressive notes are where word budgets quietly bleed.
- If still over, the cut is usually a second, weaker argument for the same thesis: keep the best one.
A default word budget for the ~8,000
| Section | Share | Discipline |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction (thesis + roadmap) | ~10% | claim stated by end of page one |
| Setup (terms, target view) | ~15% | only what the inference will use |
| The argument | ~35% | load-bearing premise gets the most room |
| Objections & replies | ~25–30% | strongest objection answered visibly |
| Conclusion | ~5% | restates what was established; nothing new |
Treat the shares as defaults, not rules: a counterexample paper spends more on making the case undeniable; a dilemma paper spends more on closing escape routes. What is non-negotiable is that every section earns its share by advancing the inference.
Worked micro-example: the roadmap sentence
- Before: "In what follows I discuss several issues surrounding grounding and explanation." — this announces a region, not a route; the reader cannot anticipate the argument or check its progress.
- After: "§2 states the argument; §3 defends its second premise against the regress worry, which I take to be the strongest objection; §4 shows the view survives the two standard counterexamples." — every section now has a stated job the reader can verify.
Naming the strongest objection in the roadmap also signals to a Mind referee that the dialectic has been thought through.
Anti-patterns
- A thesis that surfaces only on page 6
- Sections that summarize the literature without advancing the argument
- All objections quarantined in a final section, disconnected from where they arise
- A conclusion that introduces a brand-new claim or overstates what was shown
- Padding to look comprehensive while drifting over the word limit
Output format
【Thesis located in intro?】[Y/N]
【Section map】intro → setup → argument → objections/replies → conclusion (adapted)
【Premise order】clearest for the reader? [Y/N]
【Objections placed where they bite?】[Y/N]
【Within ~8,000 words?】[Y/N] — what to cut
【Next】mind-writing-style
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— ~8,000-word article limit and accessibility expectation
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 14:05
