Agent skill

terminology-normalizer

Normalize terminology across a draft (canonical terms + synonym policy) without changing citations or meaning. **Trigger**: terminology, glossary, consistent terms, 术语统一, 统一叫法, 术语表. **Use when**: the draft has concept drift (same thing called 2–3 names) or global-review flags terminology inconsistency. **Skip if**: you are still changing the outline/taxonomy heavily (do that first). **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: do not add/remove citation keys; do not introduce new claims; avoid moving citations across subsections.

Stars 377
Forks 25

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/tree/main/.codex/skills/terminology-normalizer

SKILL.md

Terminology Normalizer

Purpose: make the draft read like one author wrote it by enforcing consistent naming (canonical terms + synonym policy), without changing citations or meaning.

Role cards (use explicitly)

Taxonomist (canonicalizer)

Mission: decide one canonical term per concept and a light synonym policy.

Do:

  • Prefer taxonomy node names (outline/taxonomy.yml) as canonical labels when available.
  • Define a short synonym policy only where readers expect it (use sparingly).
  • Keep headings and tables aligned with canonical terms.

Avoid:

  • Renaming proper nouns (paper titles, benchmark names, model names).
  • Over-normalizing away meaningful distinctions (e.g., collapsing two different mechanisms into one word).

Integrator (apply without drift)

Mission: apply replacements consistently without changing meaning or citations.

Do:

  • Keep replacements local and conservative; reread sentences that become ambiguous.
  • Preserve citation placement and subsection boundaries.

Avoid:

  • Introducing new claims while rewriting for terminology.
  • Moving citations across subsections.

Role prompt: Terminology Editor (one voice)

text
You are normalizing terminology in a technical survey draft.

Your job is to make the draft read like one author wrote it by enforcing consistent naming.

Constraints:
- do not add/remove citation keys
- do not move citations across ### subsections
- do not introduce new claims while renaming

Method:
- pick a canonical term per concept
- define allowed synonyms (optional, minimal)
- apply consistently across headings, prose, and tables

Inputs

  • output/DRAFT.md
  • Optional (read-only context):
    • outline/outline.yml (heading consistency)
    • outline/taxonomy.yml (canonical labels)

Outputs

  • output/DRAFT.md (in place)
  • Optional: output/GLOSSARY.md (short appendix/glossary table, if useful)

Workflow

Use the role cards above.

Steps:

  1. Build a glossary candidate list from the draft (10–30 key terms):
  • core objects (agent, tool, environment, protocol)
  • key components (planner/executor, memory, verifier)
  • evaluation terms (benchmark, metric, budget)
  1. Choose canonical names and a synonym policy:
  • one concept = one canonical term
  • define allowed synonyms only when readers expect them (and use them sparingly)
  • if outline/taxonomy.yml exists: prefer taxonomy node names as canonical labels (avoid inventing new names)
  • if outline/outline.yml exists: keep section headings aligned with the same canonical terms
  1. Apply replacements conservatively:
  • do not alter paper names, model names, benchmark names
  • keep terminology consistent across headings, prose, and table captions
  1. Optional: write a small output/GLOSSARY.md:
  • term | canonical | allowed synonyms | notes

Mini examples (what to do / what to avoid)

  • Bad (term drift): tool API, tool interface, action schema used interchangeably without a rule.

  • Better (canonical + light synonym policy): pick one canonical term (e.g., tool interface) and allow one synonym only when first introduced (e.g., tool interface (API contract)), then stick to canonical thereafter.

  • Bad (over-normalization): replacing distinct terms so a contrast disappears.

  • Better: keep distinct terms when they encode different mechanisms; normalize only spelling and naming consistency.

Guardrails (do not violate)

  • Do not add/remove citation keys.
  • Do not move citations across ### subsections.
  • Do not introduce new claims while renaming.

Troubleshooting

Issue: normalization changes citation keys or moves citations

Fix:

  • Revert; this skill must not add/remove keys or move citations across subsections.

Issue: synonyms policy is unclear

Fix:

  • Define one canonical term per concept and list allowed synonyms; apply consistently across headings, tables, and prose.

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-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。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

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`.

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

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。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

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)。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

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。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

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。

377 25
Explore

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results