Agent skill
snapshot-writer
Write a 1-page literature snapshot (`output/SNAPSHOT.md`) from a small core set + a bullets-only outline. **Trigger**: snapshot, literature snapshot, 速览, 48h snapshot, one-page snapshot, SNAPSHOT.md. **Use when**: 你要在 24-48h 内交付一个“可读的研究速览”(bullet-first,含关键引用),而不是完整 survey。 **Skip if**: 你已经进入 evidence-first survey 写作(有 `outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl` / `citations/ref.bib` / `output/DRAFT.md`),应改用 `subsection-writer`/`prose-writer`。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 不发明论文/引用;引用只来自 `papers/core_set.csv`(或同 workspace 的候选池);不写长段落(避免“像综述生成器”)。
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/tree/main/.codex/skills/snapshot-writer
SKILL.md
Snapshot Writer (1-page, bullet-first)
Goal: produce a compact, reader-facing snapshot that answers:
- what is the topic boundary?
- what are the key themes?
- what should a reader read first?
This is intentionally not a full survey: prefer tight bullets + concrete pointers over narrative.
Role cards (use explicitly)
Snapshot Editor (scout)
Mission: deliver a one-page, high-signal snapshot that a reader can act on immediately.
Do:
- Keep every bullet content-bearing: claim -> why it matters -> pointer(s).
- Prefer contrasts and evaluation anchors over topic lists.
- Treat paper pointers as the product (auditable, minimal).
Avoid:
- Outline narration ("This snapshot/section...") and slide navigation ("Next, we...").
- Generic survey boilerplate and disclaimer spam.
- Turning the snapshot into a mini-survey with long paragraphs.
Pointer Curator (bibliography hygiene)
Mission: ensure every pointer is concrete and traceable to papers/core_set.csv.
Do:
- Use a stable pointer format:
P#### - Title (arXiv:... / doi:... / url:...). - Mix canonical anchors + recent strong baselines + benchmark/protocol papers.
Avoid:
- Dumping every paper; the snapshot is a reading path, not a catalog.
Role prompt: Snapshot Author (bullet-first; paper-like)
You are writing a one-page literature snapshot.
Your job is to be useful fast:
- define the topic boundary
- surface the key themes as claims (not headings)
- give an actionable reading path (paper pointers)
Style:
- bullets-first, compact, calm
- no narration ("In this snapshot...") and no slide navigation ("Next, we...")
Constraints:
- do not invent papers
- pointers must come from papers/core_set.csv (or the same workspace candidate pool)
- if evidence is abstract-only, state it once as a single bullet, then move on
Inputs
Required:
outline/outline.ymlpapers/core_set.csv
Optional (if available):
queries.md(time window / exclusions context)papers/papers_dedup.jsonl(if core_set is very small)
Outputs
output/SNAPSHOT.md
Writing contract (paper-like, not generator-like)
- Keep it to about 1 page (roughly <= 700-900 words).
- Bullets-first: use short paragraphs only when unavoidable (<= 3 lines each).
- No outline narration: avoid
This section/subsection ...,In this snapshot ...,Next, we .... - Don’t spam disclaimers: if evidence is abstract-only, say it once in a short “Evidence policy” line.
- Every claim bullet should attach at least 1 concrete pointer (paper_id + title; include
arxiv_id/doi/urlwhen present).
Recommended structure (stable, minimal headings)
- Title + scope (2-3 bullets)
- Evidence policy (1 bullet)
- Taxonomy (4-6 bullets; groupings only)
- Key themes (6-10 bullets; each bullet = 1 claim + 1-2 pointers)
- What to read first (6-12 bullets; canonical + recent; each bullet has pointers)
- Open problems / risks (4-8 bullets)
Workflow
-
Read
outline/outline.ymland extract:- the intended chapter structure (H2)
- the 6-10 most “write-worthy” bullets per chapter
-
Read
papers/core_set.csvand build a small “pointer palette”- Prefer: canonical anchors + recent strong baselines + evaluation/benchmark papers.
- Avoid: dumping every paper; pick “must-read” sets.
- If
papers/core_set.csvis very small, also scanpapers/papers_dedup.jsonland cherry-pick a few missing anchors (keep pointers auditable).
-
Write
output/SNAPSHOT.md- Start each section with a content claim (why it matters), not a navigation sentence.
- Make at least 2 cross-paper contrasts (A vs B) to avoid a flat list.
- Use consistent pointer formatting, e.g.:
P0012 - <Title> (arXiv:xxxx.xxxxx)orP0012 - <Title> (doi:...)
Definition of Done
-
output/SNAPSHOT.mdexists and reads like a human-written snapshot (no template narration). - Includes >= 15 distinct paper pointers (or all papers if core_set < 15).
- Includes >= 2 explicit contrasts and >= 1 evaluation/benchmark bullet (if present in core set).
Troubleshooting
Issue: snapshot feels empty / generic
Fix:
- Increase
papers/core_set.csvsize (rerun retrieval/dedupe with broaderqueries.md). - Tighten the outline: fewer headings, stronger H2 names, and bullets that encode “what to compare”.
Issue: snapshot reads like an outline narrator
Fix:
- Delete all “This section ...” openers and replace with:
Claim -> why it matters -> pointers.
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.
thesis-compile-review
对中文毕业论文进行编译、warning 分级、模板模式检查、数据与引用复查,并把问题回写成可继续迭代的 review checklist。 **Trigger**: 毕业论文编译检查, thesis compile review, warning 分级, 终稿复查, main.pdf 检查. **Use when**: 论文已经回写到 TeX 交付层,需要确认是否真正达到“可提交”的质量,而不是只做到能编译。 **Skip if**: 还处于中间层重构阶段,`chapters/*.tex` 尚未形成稳定交付稿。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 不在这里重构章节主线;如果发现结构问题,明确回退到上游修复。
front-matter-writer
Write the survey's front matter files (Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Discussion, Conclusion) in paper voice, with high citation density and a single evidence-policy paragraph. **Trigger**: front matter writer, introduction writer, related work writer, abstract writer, discussion writer, conclusion writer, 引言, 相关工作, 摘要, 讨论, 结论. **Use when**: you are in C5 (prose allowed) and need the paper-like shell to stop the draft reading like stitched subsections. **Skip if**: `Approve C2` is missing in `DECISIONS.md`, or `citations/ref.bib` is missing. **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: no invented facts/citations; no pipeline jargon in final prose; no repeated evidence disclaimers; only use keys present in `citations/ref.bib`.
thesis-question-list
维护中文毕业论文的 `codex_md/question_list.md`:把本轮问题、边界、优先级、协作方案和验收口径结构化,作为整条 thesis pipeline 的控制面。 **Trigger**: 毕业论文问题清单, thesis question list, 论文修改清单, 本轮目标, 结构问题梳理, review问题整理. **Use when**: 你已经有一批材料或上一轮 review 结果,需要明确这一轮到底修什么、不修什么,并给后续重构与编译复查提供统一入口。 **Skip if**: 当前只是在做一次性局部措辞修改,且没有形成新一轮结构/证据/编译问题。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 不在这里写正文;不把问题单写成长篇散文;每条问题必须可执行、可验收。
novelty-matrix
Create a novelty/prior-work matrix comparing the submission’s contributions against related work (overlaps vs deltas). **Trigger**: novelty matrix, prior-work matrix, overlap/delta, 相关工作对比, 新颖性矩阵. **Use when**: peer review 中评估 novelty/positioning,需要把贡献与相关工作逐项对齐并写出差异点证据。 **Skip if**: 缺少 claims(先跑 `claims-extractor`)或你不打算做新颖性定位分析。 **Network**: none (retrieval of additional related work is out-of-scope unless provided). **Guardrail**: 明确 overlap 与 delta;尽量给出可追溯证据来源(来自稿件/引用/作者陈述)。
protocol-writer
Write a systematic review protocol into `output/PROTOCOL.md` (databases, queries, inclusion/exclusion, time window, extraction fields). **Trigger**: protocol, PRISMA, systematic review, inclusion/exclusion, 检索式, 纳入排除. **Use when**: systematic review pipeline 的起点(C1),需要先锁定 protocol 再开始 screening/extraction。 **Skip if**: 不是做 systematic review(或 protocol 已经锁定且不允许修改)。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: protocol 必须包含可执行的检索与筛选规则;需要 HUMAN 签字后才能进入 screening。
rubric-writer
Write a rubric-based peer review report (`output/REVIEW.md`) using extracted claims and evidence gaps (novelty/soundness/clarity/impact). **Trigger**: rubric review, referee report, peer review write-up, 审稿报告, REVIEW.md. **Use when**: peer-review pipeline 的最后阶段(C3),已有 `output/CLAIMS.md` + `output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md`(以及可选 novelty matrix)。 **Skip if**: 上游产物未就绪(claims/evidence gaps 缺失)或你不打算输出完整审稿报告。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 给可执行建议(actionable feedback),并覆盖 novelty/soundness/clarity/impact;避免泛泛而谈。
Didn't find tool you were looking for?