admin/TWBG_Materials
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

backup materials and knowledge-base docs

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
admin
2026-05-30 16:22:29 +08:00
commit 93e50e8fce
3024 changed files with 2994945 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

162
文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/skills/nature-polishing/references/phrasebank-playbook.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
# Phrasebank Playbook
Use this file after the main argument and section role are already clear. It is a phrasebank layer derived from `Academic Phrasebank`, not a substitute for deciding what the paragraph is trying to do.
## Evidence strength
Choose verbs that match the evidence.
### Strong
- `show`
- `demonstrate`
- `establish`
- `reveal`
- `identify`
Use only when the design and data justify a strong claim.
### Moderate
- `suggest`
- `indicate`
- `support the view that`
- `are consistent with`
- `point to`
Use when the interpretation is plausible but not definitive.
### Speculative
- `may reflect`
- `could arise from`
- `appears to`
- `seems likely`
- `might be explained by`
Use when moving beyond direct observation.
## Evidence collocations
Adjectives for evidence:
- weak: `limited`, `scant`, `insufficient`
- developing: `growing`, `emerging`, `accumulating`
- strong: `robust`, `reliable`, `convincing`, `considerable`
Useful patterns:
- `The evidence presented here suggests that ...`
- `The available evidence supports the view that ...`
- `Current evidence raises important questions about ...`
- `The data point to a need for ...`
## Transition families
### Contrast
- `however`
- `by contrast`
- `nevertheless`
- `despite this`
- `whereas`
### Addition
- `furthermore`
- `in addition`
- `moreover`
- `also`
### Consequence
- `therefore`
- `thus`
- `consequently`
- `as a result`
- `thereby`
### Qualification
- `notably`
- `importantly`
- `approximately`
- `in part`
- `at least in this cohort`
Prefer the smallest connective that does the job. Do not decorate every sentence with a transition word.
## Paragraph linking without sounding repetitive
Prefer these patterns over repeated `This suggests`:
- restate the noun: `Such heterogeneity ...`
- definite noun phrase: `The resulting gradient ...`
- participial summary: `Taken together, ...`
- zero-connective progression when the logic is already obvious
Limit demonstrative-led openings. One per paragraph is usually enough.
## Gap language
Use gap statements that are precise rather than dramatic:
- `remains poorly understood`
- `has not been examined in ...`
- `has received limited attention`
- `few studies have addressed ...`
- `evidence remains sparse for ...`
Avoid:
- `no one has ever studied`
- `completely unknown`
- `ignored by all previous work`
## Comparison with prior work
To align with earlier work:
- `These results are consistent with ...`
- `This finding accords with ...`
- `Our observations broadly support ...`
To mark divergence fairly:
- `In contrast to earlier reports, ...`
- `This finding differs from ...`
- `One possible reason for this discrepancy is ...`
## Limitation language
Useful patterns:
- `These findings should be interpreted with caution because ...`
- `A limitation of this study is that ...`
- `The generalisability of these results is limited by ...`
- `We cannot exclude the possibility that ...`
- `Another source of uncertainty is ...`
Pair limitation language with the actual source of uncertainty, not with vague modesty.
## Implication language
Useful patterns:
- `An implication of this is that ...`
- `These findings may help to explain ...`
- `These data support further investigation of ...`
- `This work has implications for ...`
Implications should stay within the evidence boundary.
## Future-work language
Useful patterns:
- `Further work is needed to determine whether ...`
- `Future studies should examine ...`
- `A useful next step would be to ...`
- `Larger studies are required to validate ...`
Future work should emerge from an actual limitation, uncertainty, or opportunity.

114
文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/skills/nature-polishing/references/published-article-patterns.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
# Published Article Patterns
Use this file when polishing should improve scientific argument, not just English.
The patterns below are distilled from curated Nature and Nature Communications
research articles across materials, energy systems, construction decarbonization
and machine learning. Do not copy their wording. Use the patterns to diagnose
and reshape the user's manuscript.
## Abstract pattern
Strong abstracts usually move in six steps:
1. name the field-scale problem or opportunity
2. show why existing approaches are incomplete
3. state the specific intervention or method
4. give the decisive result with scale, comparison or constraint
5. explain why the result changes what is possible
6. close with scope, application or boundary
Polishing rule: if an abstract starts with the method, add the problem and gap
first. If it ends with enthusiasm, replace it with a bounded implication.
## Introduction pattern
High-performing introductions often use `scale -> bottleneck -> prior attempts ->
missing capability -> present study`.
- `Scale`: quantify why the problem matters, preferably with field-level stakes.
- `Bottleneck`: name the physical, computational, clinical or practical barrier.
- `Prior attempts`: acknowledge existing strategies fairly.
- `Missing capability`: explain what those strategies still cannot do.
- `Present study`: state what the paper does, not what it hopes to do.
Polishing rule: keep the gap narrow enough that the study can actually fill it.
Avoid novelty claims that depend on weakening prior work.
## Results pattern
Results sections usually work best as an evidence ladder:
1. overview of the system, workflow or design space
2. validation that the platform works under controlled conditions
3. primary performance result
4. comparison with baselines or current practice
5. mechanism, interpretation or diagnostic analysis
6. scale-up, generalization or real-world application
Each Results paragraph should begin with the question or test, then report the
observation, then give the quantitative or comparative support. Interpretation
should be brief unless the paragraph is explicitly bridging into Discussion.
## Discussion pattern
Effective Discussion writing starts from the central advance and then widens:
- what the study demonstrates
- why the evidence is credible
- how it changes an existing workflow, design rule or conceptual boundary
- what constraints remain
- what future work is enabled, without promising untested outcomes
Do not turn the Discussion into a second Results section. Use it to state what
the results mean and where that meaning stops.
## Conclusion pattern
Nature-style conclusions are compact. They usually combine:
1. the contribution in one sentence
2. the mechanism, performance or feasibility evidence that supports it
3. the scale or application implied by the work
4. one boundary condition, if the claim could otherwise overreach
Polishing rule: remove new data from conclusions. Preserve confidence, but add
scope control.
## Title pattern
Strong titles are concrete and searchable. They often combine:
- object or system
- action or capability
- application, scale or consequence
Prefer titles that reveal the central scientific move. Avoid titles that sound
like grant aims, slogans or broad fields.
## Sentence-level pattern
Published prose often looks simple because each sentence does one job:
- background sentence: field stake or known fact
- gap sentence: unresolved limitation
- method sentence: what was done
- result sentence: observed effect plus condition
- comparison sentence: baseline or previous state
- implication sentence: meaning with scope
- limitation sentence: boundary or dependency
When polishing, label each sentence by job. If two jobs compete in one sentence,
split it or subordinate one job.
## Overclaim checks from article patterns
Flag and soften claims when:
- a laboratory or simulation result is written as an immediate field-wide solution
- a single material, model or system is described as universally applicable
- correlation is rewritten as mechanism
- a comparison lacks a fair baseline
- a future application is stated as an achieved outcome
Good Nature-leaning prose can be ambitious, but the ambition must be attached to
evidence, scale and boundary.

240
文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/skills/nature-polishing/references/section-moves.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
# Section Moves
Use this file only after the main section logic has been decided in `SKILL.md`. This file is for phrase-level and move-level support derived from `Academic Phrasebank`, not for deciding the paper's overall writing strategy.
## Introduction
Questions this section must answer:
1. Why does the topic matter?
2. What is already known?
3. What is still missing or contested?
4. What does the present study ask or do?
Preferred move order:
1. establish importance
2. summarize what is known
3. identify a gap, limitation, or controversy
4. state the study aim
5. indicate value or approach
Useful phrase families:
- `Recent years have seen increasing interest in ...`
- `X is a central issue in ...`
- `Previous studies have shown that ...`
- `However, the mechanisms underlying ... remain poorly understood.`
- `Few studies have examined ...`
- `Here, we investigate whether ...`
- `This work provides ...`
Avoid:
- long historical throat-clearing
- detailed results
- inflated novelty claims before the gap is defined
## Literature Review
Questions this section must answer:
1. What lines of work define the field?
2. What has been established?
3. Where do findings diverge or remain incomplete?
4. Which gap matters for the present paper?
Preferred move order:
1. describe the scope of existing work
2. identify dominant approaches
3. state what has been established
4. note disagreements or contradictions
5. isolate the missing piece
Useful phrase families:
- `A substantial body of work has focused on ...`
- `Most studies have relied on ...`
- `Previous work has established that ...`
- `Findings have been mixed regarding ...`
- `By contrast, little attention has been paid to ...`
- `No study has yet examined ...`
Avoid:
- citation-by-citation summary
- treating all prior work as uniformly weak
## Methods
Question this section must answer:
- Could another group reproduce the work from this description, or from this description plus a clearly cited protocol?
Preferred move order:
1. design or cohort
2. materials or data source
3. procedure
4. outcome measures
5. analysis and statistics
6. ethics when relevant
Useful phrase families:
- `A cross-sectional study was undertaken to ...`
- `Samples were collected from ...`
- `X was quantified using ...`
- `We used ... to assess ...`
- `Differences were analysed using ...`
- `All analyses were performed in ...`
Avoid:
- `under standard conditions`
- `using routine methods`
- `data were analysed statistically`
## Results
Question this section must answer:
- What was observed, under which condition, and with what evidence?
Preferred move order:
1. orient the reader to the figure, table, or experiment
2. state the main observation
3. add quantitative detail
4. note expected or unexpected patterns
5. compare with prior work only if it clarifies the result
Useful phrase families:
- `Figure 1 shows ...`
- `As shown in Table 1, ...`
- `The most notable finding was that ...`
- `Contrary to expectations, ...`
- `No significant difference was observed in ...`
- `These results are consistent with ...`
- `In contrast to earlier reports, ...`
Avoid:
- discussion-length mechanism explanations
- repeating every visual detail from the figure
## Discussion
Questions this section must answer:
1. What do the main findings mean?
2. How do they relate to earlier work?
3. Which explanations are plausible?
4. What limitations constrain interpretation?
5. What follows from the findings, and what does not?
Preferred move order:
1. restate the main finding
2. explain plausible reasons
3. compare with earlier work
4. note limitations
5. state implications
6. point to future work if needed
Useful phrase families:
- `Taken together, these findings suggest that ...`
- `A possible explanation is that ...`
- `This discrepancy may reflect ...`
- `These results should be interpreted with caution because ...`
- `An implication of this is that ...`
- `Further work is needed to determine whether ...`
Avoid:
- repeating the Results section in new words
- claiming mechanism when only association was shown
## Conclusion
Questions this section must answer:
1. What was the central contribution?
2. Which finding matters most?
3. What implication follows, with what boundary?
Preferred move order:
1. return to the aim
2. summarize the decisive finding
3. state contribution or significance
4. give a boundary or forward look
Useful phrase families:
- `This study set out to ...`
- `The present findings indicate that ...`
- `These results extend our understanding of ...`
- `Notwithstanding these limitations, ...`
- `Further studies are required to ...`
Avoid:
- introducing new experiments
- ending on vague praise of the work
## Abstract
Questions this section must answer:
1. What problem or gap is being addressed?
2. What was done?
3. What was found?
4. Why should the reader care?
Preferred move order:
1. broad context
2. concrete gap
3. approach
4. key result with numbers if available
5. implication
Useful phrase families:
- `X remains challenging because ...`
- `Here, we ...`
- `Using ... , we found that ...`
- `We show that ...`
- `These findings suggest ...`
Keep the abstract selective. If a detail does not affect editorial triage, it probably does not belong.
## Title
Question this section must answer:
- Which few words make the paper searchable, accurate, and interesting without overclaiming?
Target properties:
- searchable
- specific
- restrained
- defensible
Useful patterns:
- `[Core entity] in/through/by [mechanism or context]`
- `[Process] shapes [outcome] in [system]`
- `[Signature/pattern/framework] of [phenomenon]`
Avoid:
- `A study of ...`
- vague hooks
- unverified `first`
- stacked jargon

94
文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/skills/nature-polishing/references/style-guardrails.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
# Style Guardrails
Use this file for mechanical and stylistic checks after the main rewrite. This file should refine prose and correctness, not override the main writing strategy in `SKILL.md`.
## Academic style
- prefer cautious, precise prose over conversational confidence
- avoid contractions
- avoid rhetorical questions in polished manuscript prose
- define abbreviations on first use
- use British spelling by default if the target is Nature-style prose
- keep figure legends concise; if aiming for Nature style, `<= 300` words is a good upper bound
- if aiming for Nature style, keep titles at `<= 75` characters including spaces
## Articles
Common checks:
- first mention of a singular count noun: `a` or `an`
- later mention of the same item: `the`
- generic plural: usually no article
- unique entity: often `the`
- abstract nouns used generally: often no article
Typical repair:
- bad: `The hypoxia induces ...`
- better: `Hypoxia induces ...`
## Numbers and units
- use numerals for measurements
- leave a space between the value and the unit: `25 cm`, `3.2 s`
- keep statistical symbols and mathematical notation consistent
- use en dashes for ranges where appropriate
Do not rewrite numbers into words unless the surrounding house style demands it.
## Academic register
- avoid spoken fillers and weak evaluative language
- use `we` only when it suits the discipline and document type
- keep nominalisation useful, not excessive
- keep the prose impersonal where appropriate, but do not force lifelessness
## Sentence and paragraph checks
- each sentence should express one main proposition
- dependent clauses must stay attached to a main clause
- do not join two independent clauses with only a comma
- each paragraph needs a controlling idea and supporting material
- avoid common structure errors such as sentence fragments introduced by `although` or `whereas`
## Overclaim checklist
Flag and soften:
- `prove`
- `conclusively`
- `unprecedented`
- `best`
- `superior`
- `first`
Safer replacements:
- `show`
- `suggest`
- `to our knowledge`
- `among the strongest`
- `in this cohort`
## Integrity rules
- do not invent references
- do not alter quantitative values unless correcting an obvious typo requested by the user
- do not upgrade association to causation
- do not imply broader generalisability than the study supports
## AI boundary
Use AI for language control, not for scientific fabrication.
Allowed:
- grammar and clarity
- restructuring and hedging
- translation with terminology checking
Not allowed:
- fabricated citations or datasets
- invented mechanisms presented as fact
- unsupported claims of novelty

148
文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/skills/nature-polishing/references/writing-strategy.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
# Writing Strategy
Use this file when the user is not just asking for cleaner English, but for better scientific writing logic. This is the layer that should govern all paragraph- and section-level rewriting.
## Core stance
Academic polishing is not only about style. It is also about making the reasoning legible. A polished paragraph that still performs the wrong rhetorical job is a failed edit.
## Hourglass structure
Most strong research writing follows a `broad -> narrow -> broad` pattern:
- `Introduction`: open the territory, narrow to the gap, then state the study
- `Discussion/Conclusion`: start from the specific findings, then widen to implications and limits
Use this pattern when deciding paragraph order and section scope. If a draft jumps between background, results, and implications without control, rebuild the progression first.
## Writing order is not reading order
The author may draft in one order and the reader may consume in another. A useful planning sequence is:
1. results
2. introduction and conclusion
3. title
4. discussion
5. methods
6. abstract
The practical rule for this skill is simple: organize around evidence and argumentative function, not around the chronology of the raw draft.
## Claim, evidence, boundary
Every important scientific statement should have three parts:
1. `claim`: what is being said
2. `evidence`: what supports it
3. `boundary`: where the claim stops, or what uncertainty remains
Typical failures:
- claim without evidence
- data without an explicit point
- implication without a scope condition
- correlation rewritten as mechanism
When polishing, repair these failures before polishing rhythm.
## Section responsibilities
### Introduction
The Introduction should answer four questions:
1. What is already known?
2. What remains unresolved?
3. What exact question does this study ask?
4. How does the study address it?
Do not summarize results or conclusions here.
### Results
Results state what was observed. They should provide:
- object or system
- condition
- quantitative support
- direct result
Do not turn Results into a Discussion section by adding long mechanistic interpretation.
### Discussion
Discussion explains what the findings mean. It should address:
- how the work fits the broader field
- what has been added to understanding
- which earlier work is being supported, revised, or complicated
- which explanations are plausible
- which limitations constrain the interpretation
Discussion is the natural home for hedging.
### Methods
Methods should pass a reproducibility test: could another group repeat the work from this description, or from this description plus a clearly cited prior protocol?
Reject vague writing such as:
- `under standard conditions`
- `using routine methods`
- `data were analysed statistically`
### Conclusion
Conclusion is not a mini-discussion. A strong closing usually does three things:
1. restates the central contribution
2. identifies the decisive evidence
3. states the implication with a boundary
Do not introduce new data here.
### Abstract
The abstract is a mini-paper:
1. context or problem
2. gap
3. approach
4. key result
5. implication
It should help the reader decide whether the paper is relevant, credible, and potentially important.
## Citation as positioning
Citation is not just a formatting issue. It tells the reader how the current work stands relative to earlier work.
Useful categories:
- `support`: prior work supports the premise
- `borrow`: current work adopts a method, framework, or protocol
- `contrast`: current work differs in result, setting, or interpretation
- `reuse/adaptation`: material, data, code, or images come from elsewhere
Always cite the source actually read and verified. Do not cite a paper as direct support if you only know it through another paper's summary.
## Fairness to earlier work
Do not manufacture novelty by flattening previous studies into a weak baseline. Prefer language like:
- `Although previous studies showed ..., their performance in ... remains unclear.`
- `Earlier work established ..., but did not address ...`
This preserves intellectual honesty while still making the gap explicit.
## Overclaim control
Watch for:
- `prove`
- `conclusively`
- `unprecedented`
- `best`
- unqualified `first`
Replace or qualify them unless the evidence is unusually strong and the scope is tightly defined.