paragraph-curator

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

Structured paragraph curation for C5: **select -> evaluate -> subset -> fuse**, so drafts converge instead of only expanding. **Trigger**: paragraph curator, curation, select evaluate fuse, paragraph selection, 选段, 评价, 融合, 收敛, 去冗余. **Use when**: you are in C5, `sections/*.md` exist, and the writing loop drifts toward 'longer by accumulation' (repetition, redundant paragraphs, weak synthesis). **Skip if**: evidence packs are thin / `evidence-selfloop` is BLOCKED; or you are pre-C2 (NO PROSE). **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: do not invent facts; do not add/remove citation keys; do not move citations across subsections; keep section-level claims consistent with `output/ARGUMENT_SKELETON.md# Consistency Contract`.

1installs

Sourcewilloscar/research-units-pipeline-skills

Added on2026-02-11

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add willoscar/research-units-pipeline-skills paragraph-curator

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Paragraph Curator (select -> evaluate -> subset -> fuse)

Purpose: turn “keep rewriting and getting longer” into a controlled convergence step.

This skill adds a decision layer between “draft paragraphs” and “polish voice”:

keep the best paragraphs
merge redundant ones
rewrite for clearer argument moves
expand only when coverage is missing (using existing evidence cards)

This is a content-structure pass (not a style pass). Run

style-harmonizer

and

opener-variator

after curation.

Inputs

Required:

```
sections/
```
(especially H3 bodies:
```
sections/S<sub_id>.md
```
)
```
outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl
```
(what each H3 must cover + allowed citations)
```
output/ARGUMENT_SKELETON.md
```
(single source of truth for terminology + premises)

Recommended:

```
output/SECTION_ARGUMENT_SUMMARIES.jsonl
```
(paragraph moves + outputs)
```
output/SECTION_LOGIC_REPORT.md
```
(paragraph linkage risks)
```
output/WRITER_SELFLOOP_TODO.md
```
(style smells / scope/citation warnings)

Outputs

Updated
```
sections/*.md
```
(same filenames; body-only; no headings)
```
output/PARAGRAPH_CURATION_REPORT.md
```
(short; PASS/FAIL + what changed)
Create
```
sections/paragraphs_curated.refined.ok
```
when done (empty file; pipeline contract signal)

What this skill optimizes (rubric)

You are not trying to “shorten”. You are trying to increase information density while keeping the section verifiable.

Score each paragraph on a simple 0-2 rubric:

Criterion	0 (bad)	1 (ok)	2 (good)
Coverage	does not match any required axis/card	matches one axis, thin	directly executes a must-use card/comparison
Novelty	repeats nearby content	partially redundant	adds a distinct comparison/insight
Move clarity	unclear what it does	move exists, weak output	clear move + reusable output
Consistency	premise/term drift vs skeleton	minor mismatch	fully aligned with Consistency Contract
Citation hygiene	uncited when it should be; cite-dump vibe	acceptable	citations are local and anchored (not just tail)
Fusion readiness	cannot merge; tangled	mergeable with edits	clean unit that can be fused or kept

Decision labels:

```
KEEP
```
: keep mostly as-is
```
REWRITE
```
: keep content, rewrite for clearer move/output
```
FUSE
```
: merge with neighbor(s) and rewrite into one stronger paragraph
```
REPLACE
```
: keep the slot, but rewrite using existing evidence cards (when coverage is missing)

Paragraph budget (profile-aware)

Default per-H3 target:

```
draft_profile=survey
```
: 10-12 paragraphs
```
draft_profile=deep
```
: 11-13 paragraphs

If you exceed the budget, do not delete content blindly. Prefer

FUSE

(merge redundancy) and make the fused paragraph denser.

Must-have coverage checklist (per H3)

Each H3 must contain at least:

1x
```
Definition/Setup
```
(only if this H3 introduces a new term/protocol field)
2x concrete
```
Contrast
```
paragraphs (A-vs-B comparisons; not just “many papers do...”)
1x
```
Evaluation anchor
```
paragraph (task + metric + constraint/budget/tool access; cite-backed)
1x cross-paper
```
Synthesis
```
paragraph (what generalizes, what does not; cite-backed)
1x
```
Boundary/Failure
```
paragraph (limitations; threats to validity; cite-backed when possible)
1x
```
Local conclusion
```
(a reusable takeaway used downstream)

If any item is missing, use

REPLACE

to write that paragraph from the writer context pack (do not invent new facts).

Workflow (minimal)

Pick the target set

Start with the H3 bodies listed in
```
output/SECTION_LOGIC_REPORT.md
```
, plus any H3 flagged in
```
output/WRITER_SELFLOOP_TODO.md
```
as repetitive/template-y, plus any H3 that keeps growing across edits.
Work file-by-file: each target is a concrete
```
sections/S<sub_id>.md
```
.

Build a paragraph inventory (scratch only; do not paste into the paper)

If
```
output/SECTION_ARGUMENT_SUMMARIES.jsonl
```
exists, use its per-paragraph
```
moves
```
/
```
output
```
as the first draft of your inventory, then reconcile with the actual text. For each paragraph, write one line:

P<i> :: move(s) -> output (1 sentence) :: citations (keys)

Apply the rubric and label each paragraph

Mark
```
KEEP/REWRITE/FUSE/REPLACE
```
.
If two adjacent paragraphs repeat the same axis,
```
FUSE
```
.
For any paragraph you plan to change (
```
REWRITE
```
/
```
REPLACE
```
/
```
FUSE
```
), draft 2-3 candidate rewrites in parallel (different angles: contrast-first / protocol-first / synthesis-first).
- Score candidates quickly with the rubric; keep one winner (or fuse two if they cover complementary axes).
- Keep citation keys unchanged while sampling; you are choosing surface form + structure, not changing the evidence set.

Construct the curated set

Use
```
outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl
```
to enforce must-have coverage (paragraph_plan/must_use/comparison_cards/limitation_hooks) without inventing new content.
Enforce the must-have coverage checklist.
Enforce the paragraph budget by fusing redundancy rather than deleting substance.

Fuse + rewrite (keep citation keys fixed) Rules that keep the pipeline stable:

Do not add/remove citation keys; when fusing, carry citations forward and re-anchor them to the right sentence.
Do not move citations across subsections.
Avoid adjacent citation blocks (e.g.,
```
[@a] [@b]
```
) and duplicate keys in one block (e.g.,
```
[@a; @a]
```
).
When fusing, it is often faster to write two fused candidates (one contrast-heavy, one synthesis-heavy) and pick the better one.

Write the report + marker

```
output/PARAGRAPH_CURATION_REPORT.md
```
should be short and actionable:
- ```
- Status: PASS|FAIL
```
- per H3: paragraph count before/after; what was fused; any remaining gaps
- (minimal) how many candidates you tried for the main rewrites (e.g., 2-3), so future passes can see whether this was a real selection step
Create
```
sections/paragraphs_curated.refined.ok
```
.

Routing rules

If you cannot fill a missing must-have paragraph without new evidence: stop and route upstream (
```
evidence-selfloop
```
/ C3-C4). Do not pad.
If you feel forced to change a definition or evaluation premise: update
```
output/ARGUMENT_SKELETON.md# Consistency Contract
```
first, then rerun
```
argument-selfloop
```
.
If the only issue is surface cadence/openers: do not overwork curation; run
```
style-harmonizer
```
/
```
opener-variator
```
.

Done checklist

Each targeted H3 stays within its paragraph budget (survey 10-12; deep 11-13) without losing required moves.
Redundant paragraphs are fused into denser, clearer ones (not just deleted).
No citation keys were added/removed; citation shape is reader-facing (no adjacent blocks, no dup keys).
```
output/PARAGRAPH_CURATION_REPORT.md
```
exists and is understandable.
```
sections/paragraphs_curated.refined.ok
```
exists.