Sci comparative positioning
Skill keithhegit/sci-using-kit/skills/sci-comparative-positioning
A skill family for evidence-bounded SCI manuscript workflows: literature vetting, claim-evidence alignment, paper revision, reviewer preflight, LaTeX editing, and submission packaging.
npx -y skills add keithhegit/sci-using-kit --skill sci-comparative-positioningAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when a manuscript claims novelty, improvement, efficiency, speedup, superiority, reduced cost, better performance, or contribution relative to prior work, baselines, surveys, systems, or benchmarks
SKILL.md
2.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
SCI Comparative Positioning
Overview
Audit whether comparison language is legitimate before it enters the paper.
Core principle: no "better/faster/improved" claim until task, data, hardware, metric, and evidence level are comparable.
Trigger Words
Run this skill when text contains or implies:
- faster, better, improves, reduces, efficient, outperforms
- SOTA, first, novel, superior, significant gain
- baseline, comparison, prior work, compared with
- practical value over existing systems
Required Tables
Comparable Literature Matrix
| Work | Task | Hardware/environment | Metric | Evidence level | Comparable? |
|---|
Comparison Validity Table
| Claim type | Required conditions | Allowed wording |
|---|---|---|
| Direct quantitative improvement | same task, metric, data, and controlled hardware | "X improved by Y under Z." |
| Weak quantitative reference | similar metric, different task/hardware/data | "same order/context, not direct baseline." |
| Qualitative positioning | different layer or workflow | "Unlike model-level studies, this evaluates an end-to-end workflow." |
| Not comparable | missing or incompatible basis | Do not write improvement language. |
Contribution Delta Table
| Prior layer | Current paper layer | Safe wording |
|---|
Evidence Gap Table
| Desired stronger claim | Missing evidence | Recommended experiment |
|---|
Output
- safe comparative paragraph
- prohibited phrases
- evidence gaps
- recommended experiments
Red Flags
- Comparing model latency to full workflow latency.
- Comparing different datasets as if controlled.
- Using survey claims as baselines.
- Turning COTS HIL evidence into flight validation.
See references/pressure-scenarios.md for reusable failure cases from satellite/edge-agent manuscript practice.