Individual skill
ssc-argumentation
Use when tightening the logical argument and conceptual rigor of a 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) manuscript — making concept definitions explicit, ensuring each section advances the core proposition, and keeping theoretical / normative reasoning valid (not replaced by data tables). Applies to theoretical, normative, and historical-comparative papers as much as empirical ones.
Social-Sciences-in-China-Skills/skills/ssc-argumentation/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Network or broad shell
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,405
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- data Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 5,095 bytes
Read excerpt
# 论证与思辨规范(ssc-argumentation)
## 触发时机
- 论证有跳跃,概念界定含糊
- 章节像"专题拼盘",各节不指向同一命题
- 思辨/规范论证被一堆数据替代,但逻辑链没立住
## 核心要求:每一步服务于核心命题
本刊很多稿是思辨/规范/历史比较型,**逻辑严谨度的权重不低于实证识别**。检验标准:去掉任一节,命题是否塌?若不塌,说明该节是装饰。
## 概念先于论证