Skill: eithyhe/bookwriter (version 1.0.0)

--- description: Generates structured, argument-driven book manuscript sections using modular 800--1000 word conceptual units. name: book-manuscript-writer --- # Book Manuscript Writer ## Overview This skill is designed exclusively for writing book manuscripts, theoretical chapters, and argument-driven academic essays. It does NOT generate IMRaD-style conference or journal papers. The fundamental unit of writing is: A viewpoint-style subtitle\ → followed by a structured 800--1000 word argument unit. ## workflow ### 1. Understanding the main point When asked to write a book chapter: 1. **Clarify the topic and scope** with the user - What is the central argument or core claim of this chapter? - Who is the intended audience (e.g., general academic readers, specialists, interdisciplinary scholars)? - What is the desired length (approximate word count or page range)? - Are there specific structural emphases required (e.g., case analysis, theoretical construction, conceptual integration)? 2. **Require a chapter** outline from the user - The outline must specify the sequence of unit-level claims — not just topic labels. Each entry should express a proposition. - Each outline entry should indicate: - The core claim of that unit - Its role in the chapter's argument arc (what it establishes, challenges, or advances) - Key concepts, cases, or sources it will mobilize - If the user provides only topic labels (e.g., "Section 3: Social Media"), ask them to convert each into a claim (e.g., "Section 3: Platform Algorithms Reshape Collective Attention Rather Than Merely Reflecting It"). - If no outline is provided, do NOT proceed to generation. Instead, collaborate with the user to construct one first. 3. **Gather context** if needed - A user-specified directory containing selected literature or reference documents - Supplied research materials, empirical data, or cited sources - The relevant theoretical, methodological, and domain background ### 2. Chapter Structure A chapter is not a collection of loosely related paragraphs. It is an **argument arc** composed of discrete, load-bearing **units**. Each unit advances one identifiable proposition; together, they form a chain of reasoning that moves the chapter from its opening question to its concluding position. 1. **A chapter is a sequence of argument units.** Each unit is a self-contained analytical move of 800–1000 words, organized around a single core claim crystallized as a subtitle. The subtitle is not a topic label — it is a compressed thesis. For example, "The Limits of Rational Choice" is a label; "Rational Choice Fails When Preferences Are Endogenous" is a claim. 2. **Units are ordered by logical dependency, not by topic proximity.** Unit N must create the conditions — conceptual, evidential, or logical — that make Unit N+1 possible. If two units can be swapped without loss of coherence, the chapter's argumentative spine is weak and must be restructured. 3. **A chapter typically contains 4–7 units.** Fewer than 4 suggests the argument is underdeveloped; more than 7 suggests the chapter tries to do too much and should be split. Every unit must pass a single gatekeeping question: **can this unit be removed without weakening the chapter's argument?** If yes, the unit fails — it is decoration, not structure. Cut it or reconceive it until it becomes load-bearing. ### 3. Unit Generator Each unit FOLLOWS the five-phase structure below. These phases are not optional sections to fill in — they are functional stages of an analytical move. A unit that skips a phase will be structurally incomplete. ``` Phase 1: Opening Claim (Positioning) — 3–5 sentences Directly state the unit's core proposition. The subtitle must express a defensible, non-trivial claim — not a neutral description or general background. Required: - A clear argumentative position (what this unit asserts) - Conceptual direction (where the reasoning will head) Test: If the opening can belong to a textbook summary, it is too neutral. Rewrite. Phase 2: Tension or Problem Field Explain WHY the claim matters by surfacing the friction it addresses. This may take the form of: - An empirical case that resists easy explanation - A practice dilemma where existing frameworks fall short - A conceptual conflict between competing accounts - A theoretical ambiguity that prior work has glossed over Narrative and example are permitted only insofar as they serve analysis. Any story told here must generate a question, not merely illustrate a point. Phase 3: Analytical Development (Core Section) This is the structural center of the unit — where the actual intellectual work happens. Must include: - Concept clarification: define or sharpen the key terms at stake - Logical decomposition: break the claim into its constituent parts - Mechanism explanation: show HOW or WHY the claimed relationship holds - Structured reasoning: build the argument through explicit inferential steps Required: At least two explicit logical progression markers (e.g., however, therefore, further, in contrast, this implies). Their presence is a proxy for actual argumentative movement — if the prose flows without them, it is likely describing rather than reasoning. Phase 4: Conceptual Elevation Move from the specific to the abstract. This phase transforms the analytical work of Phase 3 into a broader intellectual contribution: - Introduce or refine a concept - Reframe the reader's understanding of a familiar phenomenon - Shift the interpretive lens through which the problem is viewed Test: The reader should see the issue differently after this phase than they did at the beginning of the unit. If perception is unchanged, the elevation has failed. Phase 5: Closure and Structural Contribution Conclude by answering three questions explicitly: 1. What new understanding has emerged from this unit? 2. How does this advance the chapter's main thread — what does the next unit now have access to that it didn't before? 3. Why is this unit structurally necessary — what would collapse without it? Test: If closure does not produce advancement (i.e., the chapter's argument is in the same position as before the unit began), regenerate the unit. ``` Each 800–1000 word unit must satisfy ALL four criteria: - Contains at least one identifiable **theoretical move** (not merely a claim, but a shift in conceptual territory) - Includes **abstract-level conceptual articulation** (not only concrete examples or empirical description) - Produces **structural advancement** (the chapter's argument is measurably further along) - Is **indispensable** to the chapter's argument (passes the removal test) A unit that meets three of four is a draft. A unit that meets fewer than three should be discarded and reconceived from scratch. ### Content Generation Process Step-by-step approach: 1. **Validate the outline** * Confirm the user has provided a chapter outline with unit-level claims * Verify each outline entry specifies: core claim, role in the argument arc, key concepts/cases/sources * Check that the unit sequence follows logical dependency — Unit N must create the conditions for Unit N+1 * If the outline contains fewer than 4 or more than 7 units, discuss with the user whether to expand or split 2. **Draft units iteratively** * Generate one unit at a time, following the five-phase structure (Opening Claim → Tension → Analytical Development → Conceptual Elevation → Closure) * Start with the pivot unit — the unit that makes the chapter's most consequential theoretical move (typically Unit 3 or 4) * Then draft backward — write the units that build toward the pivot * Then draft forward — write the units that extend from the pivot toward the chapter's concluding position * Write the chapter opening last * Run the Unit Quality Gate after each unit before proceeding to the next 3. **Build inter-unit transitions** * Review the closure of each unit against the opening of the next * Phase 5 of Unit N should connect directly to Phase 1 of Unit N+1 * Add bridging language where the logical handoff is not self-evident * Eliminate redundant restatements that slow momentum 4. **Integrate sources and references** * Embed references within Analytical Development (Phase 3) where they support reasoning * Each unit should engage with at least one identifiable source or intellectual tradition * Distinguish between sources used as evidence, sources used as interlocutors, and sources used as conceptual tools * Compile a complete reference list and verify all in-text citations 5. **Review and refine** * Argument coherence: read only the subtitles in sequence — they should form a legible argument on their own * Indispensability test: for each unit, ask whether the chapter's argument would collapse without it * Conceptual consistency: key terms should carry the same meaning throughout, any shift in meaning must be explicitly marked * Progression check: the chapter must end in a different intellectual position from where it began * Elevation audit: at least half of the units should contain a Phase 4 move that genuinely reframes understanding ## DESIGN PHILOSOPHY Book writing is treated as structured intellectual advancement through modular argument units. Each section functions as a self-contained yet structurally necessary conceptual movement. ## Examples **Example 1: User asks to write a chapter on a broad topic** ``` User: "帮我写一章关于人工智能对教育评价体系影响的内容" Response: 1. Clarify scope: "我来帮你撰写这一章。先确认几个问题： - 这一章的核心论点是什么？比如'AI正在瓦解工业时代的标准化评价逻辑' 还是'AI使多维评价从理念走向技术可行'？ - 目标读者是教育研究者、政策制定者，还是更广泛的教育工作者？ - 预期篇幅（5000字、8000字、10000字）？ - 这一章在全书中的位置——前面的章节已经建立了哪些概念基础？" 2. Require outline: "请提供本章的单元级大纲，每个条目需要是一个命题而非标签。例如： - ✗ '第一节：传统评价体系'（标签） - ✓ '第一节：标准化考试的底层逻辑是工业时代对可量化劳动力的筛选需求'（命题） 如果你目前只有大致思路，我们可以先一起把大纲搭建出来。" 3. After outline is confirmed, draft units iteratively: - Identify the pivot unit (e.g., "AI使过程性数据采集成为可能， 从而瓦解了终结性评价的垄断地位") - Draft pivot unit first, then backward, then forward - Run Unit Quality Gate after each unit - Build inter-unit transitions - Write chapter opening last ``` **Example 2: User provides an outline and asks to generate** ``` User: "我已经有大纲了，请根据以下大纲帮我写第三章： 1. 知识的本质正在从确定性走向概率性 2. 课程体系的学科边界在AI时代失去了认识论基础 3. 动态知识图谱为跨学科课程提供了技术可能 4. 学习内容的更新速度必须匹配知识生产的速度 5. 未来课程的核心不是知识本身而是知识生产的方法" Response: 1. Validate outline: - 5个单元，数量合理 - 每个条目都是命题，符合要求 - 检查逻辑依赖：单元1（认识论基础）→ 单元2（制度性后果） → 单元3（技术条件）→ 单元4（时间维度要求）→ 单元5（范式结论） - 逻辑链条成立，确认进入生成 2. Identify pivot unit: - 单元3是枢纽——它将前两个单元的理论批判转化为建设性方案， 为后两个单元提供技术前提 3. Draft in order: 单元3 → 单元2 → 单元1 → 单元4 → 单元5 → 章节开头 - Each unit follows five-phase structure (Opening Claim → Tension → Analytical Development → Conceptual Elevation → Closure) - Each unit 800-1000 words - Run Unit Quality Gate after each 4. Build transitions and integrate references 5. Review: read subtitles in sequence, confirm argument arc holds ``` **Example 3: User provides reference materials and a vague direction** ``` User: "我有一些关于AI教师角色转变的文献资料，放在 /docs/teacher_role/ 目录下， 帮我写一章关于教师角色的内容" Response: 1. Read reference materials in the specified directory 2. Clarify direction: "我已阅读了你提供的文献。在此基础上需要确认： - 本章的核心主张是什么？文献中有几种不同取向： a) 教师从知识传授者转变为学习设计师 b) AI替代了教师的部分功能但强化了其不可替代的部分 c) 教师角色的转变是整个教育系统重构的缩影 请选择一 ``` ## Resources ### references/ - `writing_style_guide.md`: Detailed academic writing conventions extracted from example papers - `ieee_formatting_specs.md`: Complete IEEE formatting specifications - `acm_formatting_specs.md`: Complete ACM formatting specifications ## Important Notes - **Always ask for clarification** on topic scope before starting - **Quality over speed**: Take time to structure properly and write clearly - **Cite appropriately**: Academic integrity requires proper attribution - **Be honest about limitations**: Acknowledge gaps or constraints in the research - **Maintain consistency**: Terminology, notation, and style throughout - **User provides the research content**: This skill structures and writes; the user provides the technical contributions and findings


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: suspicious | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)