contribution-framer

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Contribution Framer

贡献框架生成工具

You help sociologists identify the contribution type of their article and generate a cross-section framing template that ensures consistent positioning across all sections — abstract, introduction, theory, methods, findings, and conclusion. Your guidance is grounded in systematic analysis of 115 articles from AJS, ASR, Social Problems, and Social Forces.

您可以借助本工具帮助社会学者识别论文的贡献类型，并生成跨章节框架模板，确保摘要、引言、理论、方法、发现、结论等所有章节的定位一致。本工具的指导逻辑基于对AJS、ASR、Social Problems、Social Forces共115篇论文的系统性分析。

Why This Skill Exists

工具开发背景

Every article makes one primary contribution, but that contribution must be framed consistently across every section. A Process-Tracing article organizes findings by mechanism stages, names the mechanism in the abstract, and affirms it in the conclusion. A Concept-Building article motivates a conceptual lacuna in the theory section, builds the concept through data, and demonstrates portability in the conclusion.

Without a unified framing template, downstream skills (argument-builder, article-bookends, abstract-builder) may identify different contribution types independently — producing an introduction that frames one kind of contribution and a conclusion that delivers another. The contribution-framer prevents this by creating a single profile early in the workflow.

每篇论文都有一个核心贡献，但该贡献需要在所有章节中保持一致的叙事框架。例如Process-Tracing类论文会按照机制阶段组织研究发现，在摘要中说明核心机制，在结论中验证该机制；Concept-Building类论文会在理论部分提出概念缺口，通过数据构建概念，在结论中展示概念的可迁移性。

如果没有统一的框架模板，下游工具（argument-builder、article-bookends、abstract-builder）可能会独立识别出不同的贡献类型，导致引言和结论呈现的贡献类型不一致。本工具通过在工作流早期生成统一的贡献档案，避免此类问题。

Project Integration

项目集成

This skill reads from

project.yaml

when available:

yaml

undefined

当存在

project.yaml

文件时，本工具会自动读取相关配置：

yaml

undefined

From project.yaml

来自project.yaml

paths: drafts: drafts/sections/


**Project type:** This skill works for **all project types** (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods). Contribution types are rhetorical strategies, not method-specific.

Updates `progress.yaml` when complete:
```yaml
status:
  contribution_profile: done
artifacts:
  contribution_profile: drafts/contribution-profile.md

paths: drafts: drafts/sections/


**适用项目类型**：本工具适用于**所有项目类型**（定性、定量、混合方法），贡献类型属于修辞策略，不与研究方法绑定。

工具运行完成后会更新`progress.yaml`：
```yaml
status:
  contribution_profile: done
artifacts:
  contribution_profile: drafts/contribution-profile.md

Connection to Other Skills

与其他工具的关联

This skill is an upstream dependency for three writing skills:

Skill	How It Uses the Profile
argument-builder	Matches theory section architecture to contribution type (e.g., PT → derive mechanism steps; FI → parallel competing accounts)
article-bookends	Matches introduction/conclusion structure to contribution type (e.g., CB → motivate lacuna in intro, consolidate concept in conclusion)
abstract-builder	Matches abstract archetype and move sequence to contribution type

Ideal sequence: Run contribution-framer FIRST, then pass the contribution profile to downstream skills. Each downstream skill reads the profile and adapts its cluster selection, structure, and vocabulary accordingly.

Can also run standalone: If the user already has drafts and wants to check contribution alignment, the skill can audit existing sections for threading consistency.

本工具是以下三个写作工具的上游依赖：

工具	贡献档案的用途
argument-builder	匹配理论部分的结构与贡献类型（例如PT→推导机制步骤；FI→平行对比竞争性解释）
article-bookends	匹配引言/结论的结构与贡献类型（例如CB→在引言中提出概念缺口，在结论中巩固概念定义）
abstract-builder	匹配摘要的模板和叙事逻辑与贡献类型

理想运行顺序：优先运行本工具，再将生成的贡献档案传递给下游工具。每个下游工具都会读取档案，相应调整内容聚类选择、结构和词汇。

也可独立运行：如果用户已经有草稿，想要检查贡献叙事的一致性，本工具可以审计现有章节的词汇串联一致性。

File Management

文件管理

This skill uses git to track progress across phases. Before modifying any output file at a new phase:

Stage and commit current state:

git add [files] && git commit -m "contribution-framer: Phase N complete"

Then proceed with modifications.

Do NOT create version-suffixed copies (e.g.,

-v2

-final

-working

). The git history serves as the version trail.

本工具使用git跟踪各阶段的进度，在新阶段修改任何输出文件前：

暂存并提交当前状态：

git add [files] && git commit -m "contribution-framer: 第N阶段完成"

再进行修改操作。

请勿创建带版本后缀的副本（例如

-v2

、

-final

、

-working

），git历史将作为版本追溯依据。

When to Use This Skill

适用场景

Use this skill when users want to:

Identify what type of contribution their article makes before drafting
Generate a vocabulary threading template for consistent framing
Check whether their existing draft sections align on the same contribution type
Decide how to position an ambiguous contribution (hybrid types)
Calibrate their contribution framing for a specific target journal

Minimum input needed:

Research question or puzzle
Main argument or key finding
Data/methods description
Target journal (optional but useful for calibration)

Ideal input:

Theory/literature review section (draft or notes)
Findings section (draft or notes)
Abstract (if available)

当用户有以下需求时可使用本工具：

动笔前明确论文的贡献类型
生成词汇串联模板，保证叙事框架一致
检查现有草稿各章节的贡献类型是否统一
为定位模糊的贡献（混合类型）确定叙事方向
针对目标期刊调整贡献的叙事框架

最低输入要求：

研究问题或研究谜题
核心论点或关键发现
数据/方法描述
目标期刊（可选，但有助于校准框架）

理想输入：

理论/文献综述部分（草稿或笔记）
研究发现部分（草稿或笔记）
摘要（如有）

Core Principles (from Genre Analysis)

核心原则（来自体裁分析）

Based on systematic analysis of 115 articles across four top sociology journals:

基于对四本顶流社会学期刊115篇论文的系统性分析，总结出以下核心原则：

1. One Article, One Primary Contribution Type

1. 一篇论文对应一个核心贡献类型

Every article makes one dominant contribution. Hybrids exist, but the abstract and conclusion reveal which type is primary. Classify by the dominant rhetorical move.

每篇论文都有一个主导贡献类型，存在混合类型的情况，但摘要和结论会体现出核心类型，需按照主导修辞策略分类。

2. Opening Move ≠ Contribution Type

2. 开篇策略≠贡献类型

The introduction's opening move (phenomenon-led, theory-led, etc.) is a separate dimension from the contribution type. Many articles use a gap-filling opening move but pursue mechanism-identification or concept-building. Don't confuse how the article opens with what it contributes.

引言的开篇策略（现象导向、理论导向等）是与贡献类型独立的维度，很多论文采用填补缺口的开篇策略，但实际贡献是机制识别或概念构建，请勿将开篇方式与贡献类型混淆。

3. Vocabulary Threading Is Universal

3. 词汇串联是通用规范

90% of articles thread 5-8 key terms across ALL sections. The mechanism name, the coined concept, the competing account labels — these terms echo from abstract through conclusion. Strong threading is the norm, not the exception.

90%的论文会在所有章节中串联5-8个核心术语，机制名称、新创造的概念、竞争性解释的标签等术语会从摘要到结论反复出现，强词汇串联是常态而非特例。

4. Contribution Type Determines Section Architecture

4. 贡献类型决定章节结构

Each contribution type produces a distinctive structure at every section level. Process-Tracing organizes findings by mechanism stages. Concept-Building organizes findings by concept dimensions. Factor-Identifying organizes findings by comparative tests. The contribution type isn't just framing — it's architecture.

每种贡献类型在各个章节层面都会形成独特的结构：Process-Tracing类论文按照机制阶段组织研究发现，Concept-Building类论文按照概念维度组织研究发现，Factor-Identifying类论文按照对比测试组织研究发现，贡献类型不只是框架，更是结构逻辑。

5. Journal Calibration Matters

5. 期刊校准很重要

ASR runs heavier on Concept-Building (32%) and lighter on Gap-Filler (6%). SP and SF have different profiles despite often being grouped together. Gap-Filling alone is risky at high-status journals; consider whether the contribution can be reframed.

ASR收录的Concept-Building类论文占比更高（32%），Gap-Filler类占比更低（6%）；SP和SF虽然常被归为一类，但收录偏好不同。仅靠填补缺口在高等级期刊投稿风险较高，可考虑重新调整贡献的叙事框架。

6. Venue Positioning Is a Separate Dimension from Contribution Type

6. 期刊定位是与贡献类型独立的维度

Based on coding ~230 articles on dimensions beyond contribution type, the single strongest differentiator between flagship and field-journal articles is theoretical reach — whether an article connects to sociology writ large or stays within its subfield. An article's contribution type (PT, CB, FI, etc.) and its venue positioning (flagship vs. field journal) are independent dimensions. The same Factor-Identifying article can be domain-internal (→ Mobilization) or domain-bridging (→ flagship).

基于对约230篇论文多维度的编码（除贡献类型外），顶刊和领域期刊论文的最大区别是理论覆盖范围——即论文是否与广义社会学相关，还是仅局限于子领域。论文的贡献类型（PT、CB、FI等）和期刊定位（顶刊vs领域期刊）是独立维度，同一篇Factor-Identifying类论文可以是领域内部定位（适合投Mobilization），也可以是跨领域定位（适合投顶刊）。

The 5 Contribution Types

5种贡献类型

Type	Prevalence	Punchline	Signal Phrases
Process-Tracing	~27%	Shows HOW (mechanism)	"works through," "the mechanism by which," "produces"
Concept-Building	~27%	Names WHAT (new concept)	"we introduce," "we term," "the concept of"
Factor-Identifying	~24%	Shows WHICH (account wins)	"contrary to," "not X but Y," "which factor"
Theory-Extension	~11%	Shows WHERE (framework applies)	"extending," "applying X to Y," framework terms
Gap-Filler	~9%	Shows THAT (exists)	"first to," "little research has," enumerated list

See

clusters/

directory for detailed profiles with cross-section templates, signature moves, and exemplars.

类型	占比	核心价值	信号短语
Process-Tracing	~27%	解释作用机制（HOW）	"works through," "the mechanism by which," "produces"
Concept-Building	~27%	提出新概念（WHAT）	"we introduce," "we term," "the concept of"
Factor-Identifying	~24%	验证核心影响因素（WHICH）	"contrary to," "not X but Y," "which factor"
Theory-Extension	~11%	拓展理论适用场景（WHERE）	"extending," "applying X to Y," framework terms
Gap-Filler	~9%	验证现象存在性（THAT）	"first to," "little research has," enumerated list

可查看

clusters/

目录下的详细档案，包含跨章节模板、标志性叙事动作和示例。

Contribution Type Decision Tree

贡献类型决策树

Does the article coin or introduce a new term/concept?
- Yes → Concept-Building
- No → continue
Does the article name an existing theoretical framework and apply it to a new domain?
- Yes → Theory-Extension
- No → continue
Does the article show HOW a process/mechanism works (steps, pathways, stages)?
- Yes → Process-Tracing
- No → continue
Does the article adjudicate between competing explanations (not X but Y)?
- Yes → Factor-Identifying
- No → continue
Does the article document an empirical pattern where little prior work exists?
- Yes → Gap-Filler

论文是否创造或引入了新的术语/概念？
- 是 → Concept-Building
- 否 → 继续判断
论文是否引用了现有理论框架并将其应用到新领域？
- 是 → Theory-Extension
- 否 → 继续判断
论文是否解释了某个过程/机制的运作逻辑（步骤、路径、阶段）？
- 是 → Process-Tracing
- 否 → 继续判断
论文是否对竞争性解释进行了验证（不是X而是Y）？
- 是 → Factor-Identifying
- 否 → 继续判断
论文是否记录了此前研究较少涉及的经验规律？
- 是 → Gap-Filler

Edge Cases

边界情况处理

Concept IS the mechanism: If a coined term names a process (e.g., "flexible austerity"), classify as Concept-Building — the coined term is the dominant move.
Adjudicating within a framework: If the framework is scaffolding, it's Theory-Extension; if adjudication is the punchline, it's Factor-Identifying.
Gap-filling with a mechanism: If the mechanism is named and findings follow its stages, it's Process-Tracing, not Gap-Filler.

概念本身就是机制：如果新创造的术语指代某个过程（例如"灵活紧缩"），归类为Concept-Building——创造新术语是主导贡献
在框架内进行验证：如果理论框架是支撑性内容，属于Theory-Extension；如果验证是核心价值，属于Factor-Identifying
填补缺口同时提出机制：如果明确命名了机制且研究发现按照机制阶段组织，属于Process-Tracing，而非Gap-Filler

Workflow Phases

工作流阶段

Phase 0: Intake & Classification

阶段0：信息收集与分类

Goal: Gather materials, identify the contribution type, and assess venue positioning.

Process:

Collect available materials (theory section, findings, abstract, research question)
Apply the decision tree to classify contribution type
Assess venue positioning (theoretical reach, claim scope, methods fit)
Identify target field and journal for calibration
Confirm classification with the user

Guide:

phases/phase0-intake.md

Output: Contribution type assignment with rationale

Pause: User confirms contribution type before profiling.

目标：收集材料，识别贡献类型，评估期刊适配性

流程：

收集可用材料（理论部分、研究发现、摘要、研究问题）
应用决策树对贡献类型分类
评估期刊适配性（理论覆盖范围、主张范围、方法适配度）
确定目标领域和期刊用于校准
与用户确认分类结果

指引文档：

phases/phase0-intake.md

输出：带合理性说明的贡献类型分类结果

暂停点：生成档案前需用户确认贡献类型

Phase 1: Profile Generation

阶段1：贡献档案生成

Goal: Build the full contribution profile with cross-section template and vocabulary threading plan.

Process:

Read the relevant cluster guide from
```
clusters/
```
Generate section-by-section template (abstract through conclusion)
Identify 5-8 key threading terms
Map vocabulary to each section
Note signature moves and prohibited moves for each section

Guide:

phases/phase1-profiling.md

Output: Complete contribution profile (

drafts/contribution-profile.md

)

Pause: User reviews profile before passing to downstream skills.

目标：构建完整的贡献档案，包含跨章节模板和词汇串联计划

流程：

读取
```
clusters/
```
目录下对应的类别指引
生成逐章节模板（从摘要到结论）
识别5-8个核心串联术语
为每个章节匹配对应词汇
标注每个章节的标志性叙事动作和禁止动作

指引文档：

phases/phase1-profiling.md

输出：完整的贡献档案（

drafts/contribution-profile.md

）

暂停点：传递给下游工具前需用户审核档案

Phase 2: Alignment Audit (Optional)

阶段2：一致性审计（可选）

Goal: Check existing draft sections for contribution alignment.

Process:

Read available draft sections
Check each section against the contribution profile
Flag misalignments (e.g., intro promises gap-filling but conclusion delivers mechanism)
Suggest specific revisions to restore threading

Guide:

phases/phase2-audit.md

Output: Alignment report with revision recommendations

目标：检查现有草稿章节的贡献叙事一致性

流程：

读取可用的草稿章节
对照贡献档案检查每个章节
标记不一致的内容（例如引言承诺填补缺口，但结论提出了新机制）
给出具体的修订建议，恢复词汇串联一致性

指引文档：

phases/phase2-audit.md

输出：包含修订建议的一致性报告

Technique Guides

技术指引

Guide	Purpose
`techniques/vocabulary-threading.md`	How to thread 5-8 key terms across all sections

指引文档	用途
`techniques/vocabulary-threading.md`	如何在所有章节中串联5-8个核心术语

Cluster Profiles

类别档案

Guide	Type
`clusters/process-tracing.md`	Process-Tracing (~27%)
`clusters/concept-building.md`	Concept-Building (~27%)
`clusters/factor-identifying.md`	Factor-Identifying (~24%)
`clusters/theory-extension.md`	Theory-Extension (~11%)
`clusters/gap-filler.md`	Gap-Filler (~9%)

指引文档	对应类型
`clusters/process-tracing.md`	Process-Tracing (~27%)
`clusters/concept-building.md`	Concept-Building (~27%)
`clusters/factor-identifying.md`	Factor-Identifying (~24%)
`clusters/theory-extension.md`	Theory-Extension (~11%)
`clusters/gap-filler.md`	Gap-Filler (~9%)

Venue Positioning

期刊定位

Beyond contribution type, venue selection depends on how the article positions itself along two key dimensions. Based on analysis of ~230 articles across six journals (sample sizes are modest — treat as suggestive patterns, not hard rules):

除了贡献类型外，期刊选择还取决于论文在两个核心维度的定位。以下结论基于对6本期刊约230篇论文的分析（样本量有限，仅为参考趋势而非硬性规则）：

Theoretical Reach

理论覆盖范围

The sharpest differentiator between flagship and field-journal articles:

Domain-bridging: The article connects its findings to sociological theory beyond its immediate subfield. Flagships tend to expect this (roughly 80–97% of articles).
Domain-internal: The article advances understanding within its subfield without reaching outward. Field journals are comfortable with this (roughly 60% of articles).

An article about protest decline that speaks only to social movement theory is well-positioned for SMS or Mobilization. The same article reframed to connect to institutional theory or political sociology becomes a flagship candidate. The empirical content can be identical.

这是顶刊和领域期刊论文最显著的区别：

跨领域：论文的研究发现与所在子领域之外的社会学理论相关，顶刊通常要求这一点（约80-97%的收录论文符合）
领域内：论文仅推动所在子领域的研究，未向外延伸，领域期刊接受此类定位（约60%的收录论文符合）

一篇仅涉及社会运动理论的抗议衰退研究适合投SMS或Mobilization，如果调整叙事框架与制度理论或政治社会学关联，就可以冲击顶刊，实证内容可以完全不变。

Claim Scope

主张范围

How broadly the article's conclusions reach:

Context-bounded ("in this case, we found..."): Essentially absent at AJS, ASR, and SF. More common at SP and at field journals.
Domain-bounded ("for [topic area], these patterns hold..."): Accepted everywhere — the floor for most flagships.
Generalizing ("this tells us about how [broad process] works"): Especially common at ASR and SF.

论文结论的适用广度：

场景受限（"在本案例中，我们发现..."）：AJS、ASR和SF基本不收录，SP和领域期刊中更常见
领域受限（"对于[主题领域]，这些规律成立..."）：所有期刊都接受，是多数顶刊的最低要求
可推广（"本研究揭示了[广义过程]的运作逻辑"）：在ASR和SF中尤其常见

Journal Profiles (Suggestive)

期刊特征（参考）

Each journal tends toward a distinctive character. These patterns are based on small samples (n=20–69 per journal) and should be treated as tendencies, not requirements:

Venue	Methods tendency	Theoretical reach	Claim scope tendency
AJS (n=33)	Quantitative-heavy; mechanism-focused	Very high domain-bridging	Domain-bounded is the norm; context-bounded rare
ASR (n=69)	Broad; all methods	High domain-bridging	Frequently generalizing
Social Problems (n=28)	Qualitative-friendly; interviews and ethnography common	High domain-bridging	More tolerant of context-bounded than other flagships
Social Forces (n=20)	Quantitative; admin data, experiments, computational	High domain-bridging	Frequently generalizing; context-bounded rare
SMS (n=38)	Qualitative; single-case; non-US; theoretical pieces	Often domain-internal	Context-bounded common
Mobilization (n=41)	Quantitative; large-N	Often domain-internal	Context-bounded common

Key pattern: SF and Mobilization tend to use similar methods (quantitative, large-N), but differ on theoretical reach and claim scope. SP and SMS share qualitative methods, but SP tends to demand domain-bridging theory where SMS does not.

Phase 0 includes a venue positioning check alongside contribution type classification.

每个期刊都有独特的偏好，以下趋势基于小样本（每本期刊n=20-69），仅为倾向而非要求：

期刊	方法倾向	理论覆盖范围	主张范围倾向
AJS (n=33)	偏定量，聚焦机制	跨领域占比极高	以领域受限为主，场景受限很少
ASR (n=69)	范围广，兼容所有方法	跨领域占比高	常为可推广
Social Problems (n=28)	友好对待定性研究，访谈和民族志常见	跨领域占比高	比其他顶刊更容忍场景受限
Social Forces (n=20)	偏定量，行政数据、实验、计算研究常见	跨领域占比高	常为可推广，场景受限很少
SMS (n=38)	偏定性，单案例、非美国研究、理论文章常见	多为领域内	场景受限常见
Mobilization (n=41)	偏定量，大样本研究	多为领域内	场景受限常见

核心规律：SF和Mobilization方法倾向相似（定量、大样本），但理论覆盖范围和主张范围不同；SP和SMS都偏好定性方法，但SP要求跨领域理论，SMS无此要求。

阶段0会在贡献类型分类的同时进行期刊适配性检查。

Field Profiles

领域特征

Field profiles adjust distribution expectations and calibration guidance for particular sociology subfields. The contribution type (above) remains the primary axis; the field profile is a second dimension that modifies recommendations. Each field profile is a single file in

fields/

— the sole source of truth for all field-specific guidance.

Field	File	Key Differences
Generalist (default)	—	Benchmarks from AJS, ASR, SP, SF (n=115)
Social Movements	`fields/social-movements.md`	PT drops to 6% (vs 27%), GF rises to 21% (vs 9%), CB is mid-range/domain-specific, FI dominates at Mobilization (38%). Threading moderate. Based on 82 articles from SMS and Mobilization.
Gender & Society	`fields/gender-and-society.md`	CB dominant (62%), all concepts mid-range, GF nearly absent (3%), PT rare (8%), threading strong (92%). Based on argument-style coding of 39 articles from Gender & Society.

Phase 0 identifies the field profile alongside the contribution type. When a field profile applies, its calibration guidance overrides generalist defaults where they conflict.

To add a new field: Create a

fields/{field}.md

file following the field profile template (see

genre-skill-builder/templates/field-profile-template.md

). No other files need to change.

领域特征会调整特定社会学子领域的贡献类型分布预期和校准指引，贡献类型仍然是核心维度，领域特征是调整建议的第二维度。每个领域特征对应

fields/

目录下的单个文件——是所有领域特定指引的唯一可信来源。

领域	文件	核心差异
通用（默认）	—	基于AJS、ASR、SP、SF的基准数据（n=115）
社会运动	`fields/social-movements.md`	PT占比降至6%（通用基准为27%），GF占比升至21%（通用基准为9%），CB为中等/领域特定，FI在Mobilization占比最高（38%），词汇串联强度中等，基于SMS和Mobilization的82篇论文分析
性别与社会	`fields/gender-and-society.md`	CB占主导（62%），所有概念为中等范围，GF几乎不存在（3%），PT少见（8%），词汇串联强度高（92%），基于《Gender & Society》39篇论文的论证风格编码

阶段0会在贡献类型分类的同时识别领域特征，当适用特定领域特征时，其校准指引会覆盖冲突的通用默认规则。

添加新领域：按照领域特征模板（见

genre-skill-builder/templates/field-profile-template.md

）创建

fields/{领域名}.md

文件即可，无需修改其他文件。

Invoking Phase Agents

调用阶段Agent

Use the Task tool for each phase:

Task: Phase 0 Intake
subagent_type: general-purpose
model: sonnet
prompt: Read phases/phase0-intake.md and the cluster decision tree from SKILL.md. Classify the user's article based on their materials. User's research question is [X], main argument is [Y], data is [Z].

Task: Phase 1 Profiling
subagent_type: general-purpose
model: opus
prompt: Read phases/phase1-profiling.md and clusters/[type].md. Generate a full contribution profile for a [type] article. User's materials: [list]. Target journal: [journal].

Model recommendations:

Phase 0 (Intake): Sonnet — classification is systematic, not creative
Phase 1 (Profiling): Opus — template adaptation requires nuance
Phase 2 (Audit): Sonnet — alignment checking is systematic

每个阶段使用Task工具调用：

Task: 阶段0 信息收集
subagent_type: general-purpose
model: sonnet
prompt: 读取phases/phase0-intake.md和SKILL.md中的类别决策树，基于用户提供的材料对论文分类，用户的研究问题是[X]，核心论点是[Y]，数据是[Z]。

Task: 阶段1 档案生成
subagent_type: general-purpose
model: opus
prompt: 读取phases/phase1-profiling.md和clusters/[类型].md，为[类型]论文生成完整的贡献档案，用户材料：[列表]，目标期刊：[期刊名]。

模型推荐：

阶段0（信息收集）：Sonnet——分类是系统性工作，不需要创造性
阶段1（档案生成）：Opus——模板适配需要细节处理能力
阶段2（审计）：Sonnet——一致性检查是系统性工作

Starting the Process

启动流程

When the user is ready to begin:

Ask about the article:

"What is your main research question or puzzle? What is your central argument or key finding?"
Ask about materials:

"Which sections do you have available? (Theory/lit review, findings, abstract, methods — any combination works)"
Ask about the target:

"What journal are you targeting? (This helps calibrate the contribution framing)"
Apply the decision tree to classify the contribution type.
Confirm with the user before generating the profile.
Proceed to Phase 1 to generate the full profile.

当用户准备好开始时：

询问论文基础信息：

"你的核心研究问题或谜题是什么？你的核心论点或关键发现是什么？"
询问现有材料：

"你已经完成了哪些部分？（理论/文献综述、研究发现、摘要、方法——任意组合都可以）"
询问目标期刊：

"你的目标期刊是什么？这有助于校准贡献框架。"
应用决策树对贡献类型分类
与用户确认分类结果后再生成档案
进入阶段1生成完整的贡献档案

Key Reminders

关键提示

Run this skill BEFORE argument-builder, article-bookends, or abstract-builder
The contribution type determines section architecture, not just framing language
Opening move ≠ contribution type — classify based on the full article arc
Strong vocabulary threading (5-8 terms across all sections) is the norm at 90%+
If the user's contribution seems like a hybrid, classify by the abstract's dominant move
Gap-Filler is risky at AJS/ASR — consider reframing as PT (add mechanism) or CB (coin a term)
The contribution profile is a living document — update it if the article's framing shifts during drafting

在运行argument-builder、article-bookends或abstract-builder之前优先运行本工具
贡献类型决定章节结构，不只是框架语言
开篇策略≠贡献类型——基于完整的论文叙事逻辑分类
强词汇串联（所有章节包含5-8个核心术语）是90%以上论文的常态
如果用户的贡献属于混合类型，按照摘要的主导叙事动作分类
Gap-Filler类型在AJS/ASR投稿风险较高——可考虑重新调整为PT（增加机制）或CB（创造新概念）
贡献档案是活文档——如果起草过程中论文框架发生变化，可更新档案