Back to Details

content-research-writer

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Content Research Writer

内容研究写作

Overview

概述

Produce well-researched, authoritative long-form content with proper source attribution, structured argumentation, and evidence-based claims. This skill covers research methodology, source evaluation, citation management, outline construction, drafting workflows, fact-checking protocols, and publishing-ready formatting for articles, whitepapers, reports, and educational content.
Apply this skill whenever content must be backed by evidence, cited properly, and structured for credibility with expert audiences.
产出经过充分调研、具备权威性的长内容，附带规范的来源标注、结构化论证和基于证据的主张。本技能涵盖研究方法论、来源评估、引用管理、大纲构建、起草工作流、事实核查规范，以及适用于文章、白皮书、报告、教育类内容的可直接发布格式规范。
当内容需要有证据支撑、规范引用，且面向专业受众构建可信度时，请使用本技能。

Multi-Phase Process

多阶段流程

Phase 1: Research Planning

阶段1：研究规划

  1. Define the topic scope and target audience
  2. Identify key questions the content must answer
  3. Determine content type (article, whitepaper, case study, guide)
  4. Set word count target and depth level
  5. Establish credibility requirements (peer-reviewed, industry reports, primary data)
  6. Create a research timeline with milestones
STOP — Do NOT begin source discovery until the research plan is documented and scope is agreed upon.
  1. 定义主题范围和目标受众
  2. 明确内容需要解答的核心问题
  3. 确定内容类型（文章、白皮书、案例研究、指南）
  4. 设定目标字数和深度级别
  5. 明确可信度要求（同行评审、行业报告、原始数据）
  6. 创建带里程碑的研究时间线
停止 — 在研究计划完成文档记录且范围达成共识前，请勿开始查找来源。

Phase 2: Source Discovery and Evaluation

阶段2：来源查找与评估

  1. Search academic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, arXiv)
  2. Identify industry reports and authoritative publications
  3. Find primary sources (official documentation, datasets, specifications)
  4. Evaluate source credibility using the CRAAP test (see table below)
  5. Organize sources in a reference manager or structured format
  6. Extract key findings, statistics, and quotable passages
STOP — Do NOT begin outlining until you have sufficient Tier 1-2 sources for every core claim.
  1. 检索学术数据库（Google Scholar、PubMed、JSTOR、arXiv）
  2. 识别行业报告和权威出版物
  3. 查找原始来源（官方文档、数据集、规范）
  4. 使用CRAAP测试评估来源可信度（见下表）
  5. 使用参考文献管理器或结构化格式整理来源
  6. 提取核心发现、统计数据和可引用段落
停止 — 在你为每个核心主张都找到足够的1-2级来源前，请勿开始搭建大纲。

Phase 3: Outline and Structure

阶段3：大纲与结构

  1. Create a thesis statement or central argument
  2. Build hierarchical outline with main sections and subsections
  3. Map evidence to each section (which sources support which claims)
  4. Identify gaps requiring additional research
  5. Define transitions between sections for narrative flow
  6. Plan visual elements (tables, charts, diagrams, callouts)
STOP — Do NOT begin drafting until the outline is reviewed and evidence gaps are filled.
  1. 撰写核心论点或中心主张
  2. 搭建包含主章节和子章节的层级化大纲
  3. 为每个章节匹配支撑证据（哪些来源支撑哪些主张）
  4. 识别需要补充研究的缺口
  5. 设计章节间的过渡以保证叙事流畅
  6. 规划视觉元素（表格、图表、示意图、标注框）
停止 — 在大纲通过评审且证据缺口被填补前，请勿开始起草内容。

Phase 4: Drafting

阶段4：内容起草

  1. Write section by section following the outline
  2. Integrate citations as you write (never retrofit)
  3. Balance original analysis with supporting evidence
  4. Use topic sentences and clear paragraph structure
  5. Include concrete examples, data points, and case studies
  6. Write introduction last (after body is complete)
STOP — Do NOT move to review until all sections are drafted and all citations are in place.
  1. 按照大纲逐章节撰写
  2. 写作过程中同步插入引用（切勿事后补加）
  3. 平衡原创分析与支撑证据
  4. 使用主题句和清晰的段落结构
  5. 加入具体案例、数据点和案例研究
  6. 最后撰写引言（在主体内容完成后）
停止 — 在所有章节起草完成且所有引用就位前，请勿进入评审环节。

Phase 5: Review and Fact-Check

阶段5：评审与事实核查

  1. Verify every factual claim against its source
  2. Check all statistics for accuracy and context
  3. Ensure citations are complete and correctly formatted
  4. Review for logical consistency and argument strength
  5. Proofread for clarity, grammar, and style
  6. Have subject matter expert review if possible
  1. 对照来源验证每一项事实主张
  2. 检查所有统计数据的准确性和上下文
  3. 确保引用完整且格式正确
  4. 评审逻辑一致性和论证强度
  5. 校对清晰度、语法和风格
  6. 如有可能请领域专家评审

Content Type Decision Table

内容类型决策表

Content TypeWord CountResearch DepthAudienceCitation Style
Blog article1,500-3,000Tier 2-3 sourcesGeneralInline links
Long-form article3,000-5,000Tier 1-3 sourcesInformed readersParenthetical (APA)
Whitepaper3,000-8,000Tier 1-2 mandatoryDecision-makersFootnotes or numbered
Case study1,000-2,500Primary + Tier 2BuyersInline attribution
Technical report5,000-15,000Tier 1 mandatoryExpertsIEEE or APA
Educational guide2,000-6,000Tier 1-3 mixedLearnersParenthetical
内容类型字数研究深度受众引用风格
博客文章1,500-3,0002-3级来源普通受众内联链接
长文3,000-5,0001-3级来源有相关知识的读者括号标注（APA）
白皮书3,000-8,000强制要求1-2级来源决策者脚注或编号
案例研究1,000-2,500原始来源+2级来源客户内联标注
技术报告5,000-15,000强制要求1级来源专家IEEE或APA
教育指南2,000-6,0001-3级来源混合学习者括号标注

Source Evaluation Framework (CRAAP Test)

来源评估框架（CRAAP测试）

CriterionQuestions to AskRed Flags
CurrencyWhen was it published? Updated?> 5 years old for fast-moving topics
RelevanceDoes it directly address your topic?Tangential connection, different context
AuthorityWho is the author? What are their credentials?No author, no institutional affiliation
AccuracyIs it supported by evidence? Peer-reviewed?No citations, unverifiable claims
PurposeWhy does this exist? Inform, sell, persuade?Strong commercial bias, advocacy without disclosure
评估标准需确认的问题红色预警
时效性（Currency）发布时间是什么时候？是否有更新？> 5年 old for fast-moving topics
相关性（Relevance）是否直接匹配你的主题？关联度低，上下文不符
权威性（Authority）作者是谁？有什么资质？无作者，无所属机构
准确性（Accuracy）是否有证据支撑？是否经过同行评审？无引用，主张无法验证
目的性（Purpose）内容存在的意义是什么？告知、销售、说服？强烈的商业倾向，未披露的立场宣传

Source Tier System

来源分级体系

TierSource TypeCredibilityUse For
Tier 1Peer-reviewed journals, official standardsHighestCore claims, statistics
Tier 2Industry reports (Gartner, McKinsey), textbooksHighMarket data, frameworks
Tier 3Reputable news outlets, official documentationGoodContext, current events
Tier 4Expert blogs, conference talks, interviewsModeratePerspectives, opinions
Tier 5Social media, forums, WikipediaLowDiscovery only, never cite directly
级别来源类型可信度适用场景
1级同行评审期刊、官方标准最高核心主张、统计数据
2级行业报告（Gartner、McKinsey）、教科书高市场数据、框架
3级知名新闻媒体、官方文档良好上下文、时事内容
4级专家博客、会议演讲、访谈中等视角、观点
5级社交媒体、论坛、Wikipedia低仅用于初步探索，禁止直接引用

Citation Formats

引用格式

Inline Citation Styles

内联引用样式

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

Parenthetical (APA-style)

Parenthetical (APA-style)

Research shows that 73% of enterprises have adopted cloud-native architectures (Smith & Johnson, 2025).
Research shows that 73% of enterprises have adopted cloud-native architectures (Smith & Johnson, 2025).

Narrative

Narrative

According to Smith and Johnson (2025), 73% of enterprises have adopted cloud-native architectures.
According to Smith and Johnson (2025), 73% of enterprises have adopted cloud-native architectures.

Footnote-style (Chicago)

Footnote-style (Chicago)

Research shows significant cloud adoption.1

Footnotes

  1. Smith, J., & Johnson, R. (2025). Cloud adoption trends. Journal of Cloud Computing, 12(3), 45-62. ↩
Research shows significant cloud adoption.1

Footnotes

  1. Smith, J., & Johnson, R. (2025). Cloud adoption trends. Journal of Cloud Computing, 12(3), 45-62. ↩

Numbered (IEEE-style)

Numbered (IEEE-style)

Research shows significant cloud adoption [1].
Research shows significant cloud adoption [1].

References

References

[1] J. Smith and R. Johnson, "Cloud adoption trends," J. Cloud Computing, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 45-62, 2025.
undefined
[1] J. Smith and R. Johnson, "Cloud adoption trends," J. Cloud Computing, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 45-62, 2025.
undefined

Reference Format Templates

参考文献格式模板

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

Journal Article

Journal Article

Author, A. B., & Author, C. D. (Year). Title of article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), Pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx
Author, A. B., & Author, C. D. (Year). Title of article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), Pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx

Book

Book

Author, A. B. (Year). Title of book (Edition). Publisher.
Author, A. B. (Year). Title of book (Edition). Publisher.

Website

Website

Author or Organization. (Year, Month Day). Title of page. Site Name. https://www.example.com/page
Author or Organization. (Year, Month Day). Title of page. Site Name. https://www.example.com/page

Report

Report

Organization. (Year). Title of report (Report No. XXX). https://www.example.com/report.pdf
undefined
Organization. (Year). Title of report (Report No. XXX). https://www.example.com/report.pdf
undefined

Content Structure Templates

内容结构模板

Long-Form Article (2000-5000 words)

长文（2000-5000字）

1. Hook / Opening Anecdote (100-200 words)
2. Context and Problem Statement (200-300 words)
3. Thesis / Key Insight (50-100 words)
4. Section 1: Background (400-600 words)
   - Historical context
   - Current state
   - Key definitions
5. Section 2: Core Analysis (600-1000 words)
   - Main argument with evidence
   - Data and statistics
   - Expert perspectives
6. Section 3: Implications (400-600 words)
   - Practical applications
   - Case studies
   - Future outlook
7. Section 4: Counterarguments (200-400 words)
   - Acknowledge limitations
   - Address objections
8. Conclusion (200-300 words)
   - Synthesize key findings
   - Call to action or forward-looking statement
9. References
1. Hook / Opening Anecdote (100-200 words)
2. Context and Problem Statement (200-300 words)
3. Thesis / Key Insight (50-100 words)
4. Section 1: Background (400-600 words)
   - Historical context
   - Current state
   - Key definitions
5. Section 2: Core Analysis (600-1000 words)
   - Main argument with evidence
   - Data and statistics
   - Expert perspectives
6. Section 3: Implications (400-600 words)
   - Practical applications
   - Case studies
   - Future outlook
7. Section 4: Counterarguments (200-400 words)
   - Acknowledge limitations
   - Address objections
8. Conclusion (200-300 words)
   - Synthesize key findings
   - Call to action or forward-looking statement
9. References

Whitepaper (3000-8000 words)

白皮书（3000-8000字）

1. Executive Summary (300-500 words)
2. Introduction and Problem Statement (500-800 words)
3. Methodology (300-500 words)
4. Findings / Analysis (1500-3000 words)
   - Section with data visualization
   - Comparative analysis
   - Case studies
5. Recommendations (500-1000 words)
6. Conclusion (300-500 words)
7. Appendices
8. References
1. Executive Summary (300-500 words)
2. Introduction and Problem Statement (500-800 words)
3. Methodology (300-500 words)
4. Findings / Analysis (1500-3000 words)
   - Section with data visualization
   - Comparative analysis
   - Case studies
5. Recommendations (500-1000 words)
6. Conclusion (300-500 words)
7. Appendices
8. References

Case Study (1000-2500 words)

案例研究（1000-2500字）

1. Executive Summary (100-200 words)
2. Challenge / Problem (200-400 words)
3. Approach / Solution (300-600 words)
4. Implementation (300-500 words)
5. Results and Metrics (200-400 words)
6. Lessons Learned (200-300 words)
7. About [Company/Subject]
1. Executive Summary (100-200 words)
2. Challenge / Problem (200-400 words)
3. Approach / Solution (300-600 words)
4. Implementation (300-500 words)
5. Results and Metrics (200-400 words)
6. Lessons Learned (200-300 words)
7. About [Company/Subject]

Writing Quality Checklist

写作质量检查清单

Paragraph Level

段落层面

  • Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence
  • Paragraphs are 3-6 sentences (avoid walls of text)
  • Transitions connect paragraphs logically
  • Evidence follows claims immediately
  • 每个段落都有清晰的主题句
  • 段落长度为3-6句话（避免大段文字堆砌）
  • 过渡语句逻辑上衔接不同段落
  • 主张后紧跟支撑证据

Sentence Level

句子层面

  • Vary sentence length (mix short and long)
  • Active voice preferred over passive
  • Avoid jargon without definition
  • Concrete language over abstract
  • 句子长度多样（长短句混合）
  • 优先使用主动语态而非被动语态
  • 避免未定义的行业黑话
  • 使用具象语言而非抽象表述

Document Level

文档层面

  • Introduction establishes the "so what" clearly
  • Each section advances the central argument
  • No unsupported claims
  • Conclusion adds value (doesn't just repeat)
  • Consistent tone and reading level throughout
  • 引言清晰说明内容的价值
  • 每个章节都推进核心论证
  • 无无支撑的主张
  • 结论有增量价值（不只是重复前文）
  • 全文保持一致的语气和阅读难度

Fact-Checking Protocol

事实核查规范

Verification Steps

验证步骤

  1. Primary source check: Trace every claim back to its original source
  2. Cross-reference: Verify key facts with at least 2 independent sources
  3. Statistical validation: Check that numbers are current and in context
  4. Quote accuracy: Verify exact wording of all direct quotes
  5. Date verification: Confirm all dates and timelines
  6. Name and title check: Verify correct spelling and current titles
  1. 原始来源核查：将每项主张追溯到其原始来源
  2. 交叉验证：至少用2个独立来源验证核心事实
  3. 统计数据校验：检查数据是否为最新且上下文正确
  4. 引用准确性：验证所有直接引用的原文措辞
  5. 日期验证：确认所有日期和时间线
  6. 姓名和职位核查：验证拼写正确且职位为当前任职

Common Fact-Checking Pitfalls

常见事实核查陷阱

PitfallExamplePrevention
Outdated statistics"50% of..." from a 2018 studyAlways note publication year, seek recent data
Misattributed quotesEinstein didn't say most "Einstein quotes"Trace to primary source document
Survivorship bias"All successful companies do X"Look for counterexamples
Correlation as causation"Countries that eat chocolate win more Nobels"Distinguish correlation from causation
Out-of-context numbers"Revenue grew 500%" (from $1 to $5)Always provide absolute numbers and context
陷阱示例预防方法
过时的统计数据"50% of..." from a 2018 study始终标注发布年份，查找最新数据
错误归属的引言Einstein didn't say most "Einstein quotes"追溯到原始来源文档
幸存者偏差"All successful companies do X"查找反例
把相关性当作因果性"Countries that eat chocolate win more Nobels"区分相关性和因果性
脱离上下文的数字"Revenue grew 500%" (from $1 to $5)始终提供绝对数值和上下文

Research Tools

研究工具

ToolPurposeBest For
Google ScholarAcademic paper searchPeer-reviewed research
Semantic ScholarAI-powered paper discoveryFinding related work
arXivPreprintsCutting-edge CS/ML/Physics
PubMedMedical/bio researchHealth and life sciences
StatistaStatistics and market dataIndustry data points
Wayback MachineHistorical web pagesVerifying past claims
Zotero / MendeleyReference managementOrganizing sources
PerplexityAI-assisted researchInitial discovery
工具用途最适用场景
Google Scholar学术论文检索同行评审研究
Semantic ScholarAI-powered paper discovery查找相关研究
arXiv预印本前沿CS/ML/Physics
PubMed医学/生物研究健康和生命科学领域
Statista统计数据和市场数据行业数据点
Wayback Machine历史网页验证过往主张
Zotero / Mendeley参考文献管理整理来源
PerplexityAI-assisted research初步探索

Anti-Patterns / Common Mistakes

反模式/常见错误

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsWhat To Do Instead
Claims without citationsUndermines credibility entirelyCite every factual claim inline
Single-source assertionsOne source can be wrong or biasedCross-reference with 2+ independent sources
Citing secondary when primary existsTelephone game distorts findingsTrace to and cite the original study
Writing introduction firstLeads to misalignment with bodyWrite body first, introduction last
Padding to reach word countReaders detect filler immediatelyAdd depth or cut the target
Weasel words without specifics"Some experts say" means nothingName the expert, cite the source
Retrofitting citations after draftingGaps in evidence go unnoticedIntegrate citations during writing
Ignoring counterargumentsOne-sided work lacks credibilityAddress objections explicitly
Paraphrasing too closelyBorderline plagiarism even with citationSummarize in your own analytical voice
No conflict-of-interest disclosureErodes trust when discoveredDisclose sponsorship or affiliations upfront
反模式失败原因替代方案
主张无引用完全破坏可信度Cite every factual claim inline
单一来源断言一个来源可能出错或有偏见Cross-reference with 2+ independent sources
有原始来源时引用二手来源传话游戏会扭曲研究发现Trace to and cite the original study
先写引言会导致和主体内容不匹配Write body first, introduction last
凑字数读者会立刻发现填充内容Add depth or cut the target
无具体信息的模糊表述"Some experts say" means nothingName the expert, cite the source
起草完成后补加引用证据缺口会被忽略Integrate citations during writing
忽略反方论点片面内容缺乏可信度Address objections explicitly
改写过度接近原文即使有引用也接近抄袭Summarize in your own analytical voice
未披露利益冲突被发现后会侵蚀信任Disclose sponsorship or affiliations upfront

Anti-Rationalization Guards

反侥幸规则

  • Do NOT skip the CRAAP test because "the source looks reputable" -- evaluate it formally.
  • Do NOT use Tier 4-5 sources for core claims, regardless of convenience.
  • Do NOT begin drafting without a completed outline with evidence mapped to sections.
  • Do NOT publish without running the fact-checking protocol on every statistic and quote.
  • Do NOT retrofit citations after writing -- integrate them as you draft.
  • 不要因为"the source looks reputable"就跳过CRAAP测试——要正式评估。
  • 不要用4-5级来源支撑核心主张，不管有多方便。
  • 没有完成带证据匹配的完整大纲前，不要开始起草。
  • 没有对所有统计数据和引用执行事实核查流程前，不要发布。
  • 不要写完后补加引用——起草过程中就要同步插入。

Integration Points

集成点

SkillHow It Connects
seo-optimizer
Research content needs SEO-optimized titles, meta descriptions, and structured data
content-creator
Research findings feed into marketing copy and social media content
email-composer
Research summaries inform stakeholder update emails and executive briefings
tech-docs-generator
Technical research follows similar source evaluation and citation practices
llm-as-judge
Evaluate research content quality against rubric dimensions
clean-code
Writing quality checklist parallels clean code principles for prose
技能关联方式
seo-optimizer
研究类内容需要SEO优化的标题、元描述和结构化数据
content-creator
研究发现可用于营销文案和社交媒体内容
email-composer
研究摘要可用于利益相关方更新邮件和高管简报
tech-docs-generator
技术研究遵循类似的来源评估和引用规范
llm-as-judge
按照评分维度评估研究内容质量
clean-code
写作质量检查清单和面向文案的clean code原则对应

Skill Type

技能类型

FLEXIBLE — Adapt research depth, citation formality, and structure to the content type and audience. Academic whitepapers demand Tier 1 sources and formal citations; blog posts may use a lighter approach. The fact-checking protocol and source evaluation framework are always recommended.
灵活适配 —— 根据内容类型和受众调整研究深度、引用正式度和结构。学术白皮书要求1级来源和正式引用；博客文章可以使用更轻量的方式。事实核查流程和来源评估框架始终建议使用。