agentsclimarketplace

Mind writing style

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Mind-Skills/skills/mind-writing-style

Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill mind-writing-style

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a Mind article so the argument is maximally clear to a broad philosophical readership within the ~8,000-word limit. Mind asks that even technical material be accompanied by informal exposition. Tightens sentences and clarity; it does not generate the argument (see mind-thesis-and-argument).

SKILL.md

4.7 KB, 956 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Writing Style (mind-writing-style)

Mind prizes prose that makes a rigorous argument easy to follow. Authors are explicitly asked to present arguments so they are accessible to a broad readership among philosophers, and where technical material appears, to accompany it with informal exposition. This skill is about clarity and economy at the sentence level — not about generating claims (that is mind-thesis-and-argument).

When to trigger

  • Drafting the introduction or doing a final clarity pass
  • A reader said the prose is "dense," "hard to follow," or "only specialists can read it"
  • A formal passage needs an informal gloss
  • Over the word limit and needing to cut words without losing the argument

Write for a broad philosophical readership

  1. Plain, exact prose. Short declarative sentences for the key moves. Say the claim, then support it. Avoid ornament that hides the inference.
  2. Gloss every technicality. When you introduce symbolism, a formal definition, or a term of art, immediately restate the point in ordinary language. A philosopher outside your subfield should follow the argument.
  3. Argument-first sentences. Lead with the claim, then the reason — not a wind-up that buries it. Make the logical connective explicit ("so," "because," "but," "therefore").
  4. Define on first use; one term per concept. Do not let a concept drift across two words, or one word cover two concepts (guards against the equivocation mind-conceptual-analysis-and-method flags).
  5. Quote sparingly and purposefully. Use a quotation to fix the target view precisely, not to fill space; analyze every quotation you include.

Mechanics

  • Prefer the active voice and concrete subjects; name who claims what.
  • Numbered premises or labeled claims (P1, P2, …) aid the reader when the argument is intricate.
  • Keep footnotes for genuine qualifications and sources, not for a parallel essay.
  • One consistent citation style throughout (full conversion to MIND house style happens in mind-citation-and-style).

Fit the ~8,000-word limit

  • Cut hedging, throat-clearing, and re-explanation of views the reader knows.
  • Replace a long paraphrase of an opponent with one precise sentence (or a short quotation).
  • Every sentence should advance or clarify the argument; delete decoration.
  • Tighten footnotes — discursive notes are where the word count quietly grows.

Anti-patterns

  • Dense, clause-stacked sentences that hide the inference
  • Formalism with no plain-language gloss (against Mind's stated expectation)
  • Burying the thesis in qualifications before it is even stated
  • Long block quotations left unanalyzed
  • A term that shifts meaning mid-paper

Style execution pass for Mind

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the target thesis, argument map, objection sequence, and dialectical payoff; then test whether the manuscript addresses analytic-philosophy reviewers who expect a precise thesis, live objection, argument structure, and contribution to an active debate.

  • Primary move: Rewrite the opening and transitions so the venue-level claim, evidence object, and contribution are visible before technical detail.
  • Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
  • Neighbor test: compare against Philosophical Review for broader top philosophy, Nous for analytic breadth, Ethics for normative/political theory; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
  • Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Reads for a broad audience?】jargon glossed / formalism explained? [Y/N]
【Thesis clear early?】[Y/N]
【Argument-first prose?】connectives explicit? [Y/N]
【Within ~8,000 words?】[Y/N] — where to trim
【Quotations purposeful + analyzed?】[Y/N]
【Next】mind-citation-and-style

Supplementary resources

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.