Skill: junwugit/thesis-revision-editor (version 1.0.0)

--- name: thesis-revision-editor description: Review, revise, and save a complete thesis, dissertation, undergraduate paper, graduation thesis, proposal, or chapter draft from a user's full text or file path. Use when users ask for thesis revision suggestions, a modification list, line-by-line or chapter-by-chapter academic editing, rewriting according to comments, improving logic and scholarly quality, producing a complete revised thesis, saving the revised version, and explaining what was changed and why. Default to the same language as the thesis unless the user requests another language. --- # Thesis Revision Editor ## Scope Use this skill to turn a supplied thesis or thesis file into a revised thesis with a clear modification plan, completed edits, saved revised file, and concise explanation of changes. This skill can handle full theses, undergraduate papers, proposals, chapter drafts, and advisor-reviewed drafts. It should improve academic quality, structure, logic, clarity, consistency, and defensibility while preserving the user's research design, data, findings, and voice unless the user explicitly asks for substantive rewriting. ## Required Reference Before performing a full thesis review or revision, read `references/thesis-revision-guide.md`. It contains the chapter-by-chapter quality checklist, issue severity rules, revision workflow, saving rules, change-log format, and academic safeguards derived from the local `7suggestion.txt` source. ## Input Extraction Extract and use any information the user provides: - Thesis title, discipline, degree level, school format, advisor comments, rubric, and target language - Full thesis text or file path - Chapter structure and headings - Research problem, purpose, significance, theory, research questions, hypotheses, variables, concepts, or themes - Literature review scope, reference style, source currency, and citation issues - Method: participants, instruments, data collection, data analysis, ethics, validity/reliability, trustworthiness - Results: tables, figures, statistics, qualitative themes, interpretations, and missing transitions - Discussion/conclusion: interpretation, implications, limitations, future research, and conclusion logic - Formatting requirements, word count, section order, and requested output filename If the user provides only a partial chapter, revise only that material and do not claim the whole thesis has been checked. If the full thesis is too long for one response, revise and save the complete file when possible, then summarize changes by chapter. ## Revision Workflow 1. Determine the thesis language and write suggestions, revised text, and change explanations in that language unless the user requests otherwise. 2. Read the thesis or supplied file carefully. If the user provides a file path, preserve the original and create a revised copy. 3. Build a brief thesis profile: title, topic, method, data type, chapter structure, and main quality risks. 4. Produce a prioritized modification list before editing. Group by chapter and severity. 5. Revise item by item according to the modification list. 6. Preserve factual content: do not invent data, findings, citations, sample details, instruments, or references. 7. Save the revised thesis: - If the input is a local file, save a new copy next to it using a suffix such as `_revised` or `_修改稿`. - If the input is pasted text, save a Markdown file in the current working directory unless the user specifies another path. - Do not overwrite the original unless the user explicitly asks. 8. Report the saved path, what changed, and why the changes improve the thesis. ## Revision Standards Use chapter-appropriate standards: - Introduction: clear background, problem, purpose, significance, definitions, theory, research questions, limitations, and chapter organization. - Literature review: comprehensive and relevant coverage, concept/variable alignment, synthesis rather than source-by-source listing, accurate citations, summary and transition. - Methodology: clear participants/data sources, sampling, instruments/materials, data collection, data analysis, validity/reliability or trustworthiness, ethics, and replicability. - Results: objective presentation, table/figure clarity, correct organization by research question/hypothesis/theme, no premature discussion. - Discussion and conclusion: interpretation grounded in findings, links to theory and literature, implications derived from findings, limitations, future research, and defensible conclusions. ## Output Standards For a full thesis revision task, provide: - A prioritized modification list - A short note about the revision strategy - The saved revised file path - A change log with each major change and reason - The complete revised thesis text when it fits comfortably in the response; otherwise provide the saved file path and a concise chapter-by-chapter summary - Any remaining issues that require user-supplied data, references, school format, or advisor confirmation Quality requirements: - Do not fabricate academic content. - Do not add fake citations or unsupported recent literature. - Do not change the study design, sample, data, results, or conclusions beyond what the supplied thesis supports. - Do not erase the user's original argument unless it is logically inconsistent or unsupported. - Preserve citation markers and reference entries where possible. - Keep edits academically formal but readable. - Flag unresolved factual gaps instead of silently filling them.

path: agents/openai.yaml
content: interface:
  display_name: "Thesis Revision Editor"
  short_description: "Review, revise, and save full theses"
  default_prompt: "Use $thesis-revision-editor to review my complete thesis, list revision suggestions, revise it item by item, save the revised thesis, and explain every change."


path: references/thesis-revision-guide.md
content: # Thesis Revision and Quality Checklist Guide

This reference is derived and paraphrased from the local source `7suggestion.txt`. Use it to review, revise, and save a complete thesis or chapter draft.

## Table of Contents

1. Core Function
2. Evidence and Integrity Rules
3. File and Saving Rules
4. Review Workflow
5. Severity Levels
6. Chapter I: Introduction Checklist
7. Chapter II: Literature Review Checklist
8. Chapter III: Methodology Checklist
9. Chapter IV: Results Checklist
10. Chapter V: Discussion and Conclusions Checklist
11. Cross-Chapter Consistency Checklist
12. Revision Types
13. Modification List Format
14. Change Log Format
15. Full Revised Thesis Output
16. Chinese Templates
17. English Templates
18. Final Quality Check

## Core Function

The skill should do four connected jobs:

1. Diagnose the thesis using a chapter-by-chapter academic quality checklist.
2. Produce a prioritized list of modification suggestions.
3. Revise the thesis according to the suggestions, item by item.
4. Save the revised thesis and explain what changed and why.

The goal is not simply proofreading. The revision should improve structure, coherence, academic argument, methodological clarity, results reporting, discussion quality, and defensibility for graduation review or oral defense.

## Evidence and Integrity Rules

Do not invent:

- Data, sample size, participants, instruments, reliability, validity, or statistical results
- Interview quotations, themes, cases, observations, or document evidence
- References, authors, publication years, journal titles, or DOI information
- Conclusions not supported by the findings
- School-specific formatting rules not supplied by the user

Allowed edits:

- Improve grammar, clarity, cohesion, transitions, and academic tone
- Reorganize paragraphs and headings when the logic requires it
- Add signposting sentences, chapter summaries, and transitions
- Clarify problem-purpose-question-method alignment
- Mark missing evidence with clear placeholders
- Tighten unsupported claims into cautious academic wording
- Convert vague statements into thesis-ready language when the underlying content is supplied

When factual information is missing, use a placeholder or note:

> [此处需补充：样本量、量表来源、信度系数或具体统计结果]

English:

> [Add here: sample size, instrument source, reliability coefficient, or specific statistical result]

## File and Saving Rules

If the user provides a local file path:

- Read the original file.
- Preserve the original file.
- Save the revised version next to the original file unless the user specifies another path.
- Use a clear suffix, such as `_revised`, `_revision`, `_修改稿`, or `_修订版`.
- If the file is plain text or Markdown, save in the same format.
- If the file is DOCX and direct structured editing is feasible, save a revised DOCX copy; otherwise convert to Markdown/text for revision and clearly state the saved format.
- If the file is PDF, treat it as read-only source material; save the revised thesis as Markdown, DOCX, or text depending on available tools and user preference.

If the user pastes thesis text:

- Save the revised version as a Markdown file in the current working directory unless the user gives a filename.
- Use a descriptive filename such as `thesis_revised.md` or `论文修改稿.md`.

Do not overwrite the user's original file unless the user explicitly says to overwrite it.

## Review Workflow

Use this sequence for a full thesis revision:

1. Identify the thesis language, discipline, degree level, and chapter structure.
2. Read the full thesis and create a brief thesis profile.
3. Evaluate each chapter using the relevant checklist below.
4. Produce a prioritized modification list.
5. Revise high-impact issues first: problem-purpose alignment, method clarity, result-discussion separation, unsupported conclusions, missing transitions.
6. Then revise medium-impact issues: paragraph logic, section organization, literature synthesis, variable/concept consistency, table/figure references.
7. Finally revise language-level issues: grammar, academic tone, repetition, vague wording, formatting consistency.
8. Save the revised thesis.
9. Provide a change log and remaining issues.

## Severity Levels

Use severity labels in the modification list:

- Critical: the issue may affect whether the thesis is accepted, such as unclear research problem, unsupported method, invented data, missing results, or conclusions not based on findings.
- Major: the issue weakens academic quality, such as poor literature synthesis, unclear sampling, missing validity/reliability, weak discussion, or inconsistent research questions.
- Moderate: the issue affects readability and professionalism, such as weak transitions, repetitive paragraphs, unclear table descriptions, or inconsistent terminology.
- Minor: grammar, punctuation, format, wording, or small citation consistency issues.

Prioritize critical and major issues before minor polishing.

## Chapter I: Introduction Checklist

Check whether the introduction:

- Places the study in a broader theoretical and practical context.
- Provides adequate background for all major variables, concepts, or themes.
- Explains the background of the problem clearly, including relevant trends, unresolved issues, or social/practical concerns.
- Uses current and relevant literature when the school expects recent sources.
- States the research problem clearly.
- Explains what has already been done about the problem.
- Shows how the problem relates to previous research.
- Leads logically from the problem statement to the study purpose.
- States the purpose clearly and succinctly.
- Connects the purpose to the problem.
- Explains the significance for theory, practice, or both.
- Defines key terms clearly enough for readers to understand their use in the study.
- Presents a theoretical or conceptual framework when appropriate.
- Connects theory, variables/concepts, and research questions or hypotheses.
- Uses theory as a lens for qualitative interpretation when relevant.
- States research questions that are aligned with the problem and purpose.
- Clarifies variables, constructs, concepts, or phenomenon of interest.
- Makes the measurement or inquiry type clear: description, relationship, difference, influence, meaning, process, or experience.
- Provides testable hypotheses for quantitative studies when hypotheses are used.
- States limitations, delimitations, and assumptions when the thesis format requires them.
- Ends with an organization-of-the-study paragraph or transition to the next chapter.

Common revisions:

- Add a transition from broad background to specific problem.
- Rewrite vague purpose statements.
- Align research questions with variables or qualitative concepts.
- Move method details from the introduction to methodology.
- Add missing definitions or tighten overbroad significance claims.

## Chapter II: Literature Review Checklist

Check whether the literature review:

- Begins with an introduction or advance organizer.
- Covers all variables, concepts, theories, or themes in the study.
- Reviews literature relevant to the problem rather than loosely related sources.
- Uses sufficient and current references for the discipline and degree level.
- Cites sources accurately and consistently.
- Synthesizes studies rather than listing one study after another.
- Groups authors who make similar points where appropriate.
- Avoids excessive direct quotations.
- Summarizes major sections without unnecessary repetitive headings.
- Shows areas of agreement, disagreement, and gaps.
- Explains how prior research leads to the current study.
- Ends with a summary and transition to methodology.

Common revisions:

- Reorganize the review by theme, variable, theory, or research question.
- Add synthesis sentences at the end of each subsection.
- Replace unsupported claims with cited or cautious wording.
- Connect literature gaps to the study purpose.
- Reduce source-by-source narration.

## Chapter III: Methodology Checklist

Check whether the methodology chapter:

- Begins with an introduction or advance organizer.
- Describes population, participants, sample, or data sources.
- Explains sampling method, selection criteria, and sample characteristics.
- Justifies whether the sample size is appropriate for the method.
- Describes instruments, interview protocols, observation forms, documents, or materials.
- Explains why each instrument or data source is appropriate.
- Reports validity and reliability for quantitative instruments when available.
- Describes instrument development, scoring, interpretation, pilot testing, and validation if the instrument was self-developed.
- Describes interview procedures and ways to reduce interviewer bias when interviews are used.
- Reports interrater or interobserver reliability when relevant.
- Describes data collection procedures in enough detail for replication or audit.
- Explains pilot study execution, findings, and revisions when a pilot was conducted.
- Describes qualitative trustworthiness strategies such as triangulation, member checking, peer review, thick description, or audit trail when relevant.
- Uses data analysis methods appropriate to each research question, hypothesis, variable, theme, or data source.
- Reports enough planned or completed statistics for quantitative analysis.
- Labels qualitative themes and patterns clearly.
- Ends with a summary and transition to the results chapter.

Common revisions:

- Add method-rationale sentences.
- Align each research question with data source and analysis method.
- Clarify sampling and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
- Add ethics, consent, anonymity, and confidentiality details.
- Separate data collection from data analysis.

## Chapter IV: Results Checklist

Check whether the results chapter:

- Begins with an introduction or advance organizer.
- Presents demographic or descriptive statistics where appropriate.
- Uses tables for sample characteristics when helpful.
- Uses headings that match research questions, hypotheses, themes, variables, or models.
- Presents tables and figures clearly and in a logical order.
- Describes the data in each table or figure in the text.
- Reports statistical tests with appropriate statistics, degrees of freedom, p values, and effect sizes when relevant.
- Includes post hoc tests when the analysis requires them.
- Keeps interpretation out of the results chapter for standard quantitative reporting.
- Balances quotations and narrative description in qualitative results.
- Provides summary tables of key findings when useful.
- Ends with a summary and transition to discussion.

Common revisions:

- Move interpretation from results to discussion.
- Add text that introduces each table or figure.
- Add missing descriptive statistics or placeholders when data are absent.
- Reorder findings to match research questions.
- Make qualitative theme names clearer and more analytic.

## Chapter V: Discussion and Conclusions Checklist

Check whether the discussion/conclusion chapter:

- Begins with an introduction or advance organizer.
- Briefly summarizes the whole study.
- Discusses findings in relation to previous studies, theoretical rationale, and literature review.
- Derives implications from actual findings.
- Addresses implications for theory and practice when relevant.
- Makes future research recommendations that follow from the study.
- Provides conclusions grounded in findings.
- Highlights the important aspects of the study without adding new data.
- Avoids overgeneralization beyond the sample, method, or data.

Common revisions:

- Add finding-by-finding discussion.
- Link results back to theory and literature.
- Convert unsupported recommendations into cautious suggestions.
- Strengthen limitations and future research.
- Rewrite conclusions so they assert what the findings support, not merely repeat results.

## Cross-Chapter Consistency Checklist

Check these issues across the whole thesis:

- Title, purpose, research questions, method, results, and conclusions match.
- Variables/concepts use consistent names across chapters.
- Theoretical framework appears in introduction, literature review, and discussion consistently.
- Every research question is answered in results and discussed in discussion.
- Every hypothesis has a corresponding result and conclusion.
- Method descriptions match the actual analyses reported.
- Tables and figures are numbered consistently.
- Citations in the text appear in the reference list, and references in the list are cited in the text.
- Chapter summaries and transitions guide the reader.
- The thesis does not promise analyses or outcomes that are never delivered.

## Revision Types

Use these revision categories in the change log:

- Structure: reorganized headings, section order, or chapter flow.
- Logic: clarified problem-purpose-question-method-result alignment.
- Evidence: added or marked needed support, citations, data, or examples.
- Method: clarified sample, instrument, data collection, analysis, ethics, or validity.
- Results: improved objective reporting, table references, statistics, or theme presentation.
- Discussion: improved interpretation, implications, limitations, future research, or conclusions.
- Language: improved academic tone, grammar, sentence clarity, cohesion, or terminology.
- Format: corrected headings, numbering, table/figure labels, citations, or reference style.

## Modification List Format

Use this format before revising:

```markdown
## 修改意见列表

| 序号 | 位置 | 严重程度 | 问题 | 修改建议 | 修改理由 |
|---:|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 第一章 研究背景 | Major | …… | …… | …… |
```

If the user asks for a concise list, provide only the high-priority issues. If the user asks for comprehensive review, include chapter-by-chapter details.

## Change Log Format

After saving the revised thesis, provide:

```markdown
## 修改内容与原因

| 序号 | 修改位置 | 修改类型 | 修改内容 | 修改原因 |
|---:|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 第一章 1.1 | Logic | 重写研究背景末段，增加问题过渡 | 原文从背景跳到目的，缺少问题链条 |
```

For very long documents, summarize the change log by chapter and list only major edits.

## Full Revised Thesis Output

If the revised thesis is short enough, include it in the response after saving:

```markdown
## 修改后的完整论文

……
```

If the revised thesis is too long for one response:

- Save the complete revised file.
- Provide the saved path.
- Provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of revisions.
- Offer to paste a specific chapter or continue output in parts if needed.

The saved file is the authoritative complete revised thesis when response length is constrained.

## Chinese Templates

### Revision Strategy Note

> 我将按照"结构与逻辑优先、方法与结果一致性优先、语言润色最后处理"的顺序修改。修改过程中保留原论文的研究设计、数据和核心结论，不新增未经提供的数据或参考文献。

### Missing Evidence Note

> 此处原文缺少必要依据。由于目前没有提供具体数据/文献/量表信息，我已保留占位提示，建议作者根据原始资料补充后再定稿。

### Saved File Note

> 修改后的完整论文已保存至：`...`。原文件未被覆盖。

### Remaining Issue Note

> 仍需作者确认的问题包括：……。这些内容涉及真实数据、学校格式或导师要求，不能由文本润色直接替代。

## English Templates

### Revision Strategy Note

> I will revise the thesis in the following order: structure and logic first, method-result consistency second, and language polishing last. I will preserve the original research design, data, and core conclusions, and I will not add unsupported data or fabricated references.

### Missing Evidence Note

> This part lacks necessary evidence. Because the specific data/literature/instrument information has not been provided, I have left a clear placeholder for the author to complete before final submission.

### Saved File Note

> The complete revised thesis has been saved to: `...`. The original file was not overwritten.

## Final Quality Check

Before finalizing, check:

- Has the original file been preserved?
- Has the revised file been saved?
- Is there a prioritized modification list?
- Does the revised thesis preserve real data and findings?
- Are all major chapters checked?
- Are research problem, purpose, questions, method, results, and conclusions aligned?
- Are missing factual materials marked instead of invented?
- Are the changes explained with reasons?
- Is the output in the same language as the thesis unless requested otherwise?
- Are remaining user-confirmation items listed?


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