Menu

Individual skill

press-conference-revision-evidence-bound

0upvotes

Diagnose and revise defensive academic writing while preserving claim ceilings, evidence status, scope conditions, rival explanations, and conceptual hierarchy. Use for a whole-manuscript batch audit or a tightly authorized, tracked-change revision when an academic paper hides its contribution beneath self-defence, repeated caveats, process narration, or unnecessary comparisons; especially when a qualitative, historical, or mixed-method manuscript must become contribution-forward without becoming promotional or overclaimed. Do not use for first drafting, new research, citation repair, evidence admission, grammar-only polishing, or making claims sound stronger than the evidence permits.

SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 33e6c3a2f69c8c27dfd328e7b8df97609c81687f

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Local scripts
Last checked
Nov 11, 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)
281
Repository last updated
Aug 23, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Evidence-Bound Press-Conference Revision

Treat a paper as a clear academic presentation of its best supported contribution, not as a work log or a self-audit. Reframe defensiveness; never remove the information that lets readers judge what the evidence supports.

## Non-negotiable distinction

Do not treat a cue word as a verdict. The target is **rhetorical defensiveness**, not scholarly caution.

- Cut, compress, or reframe self-deprecation, anticipatory answers to objections the manuscript has not invited, redundant hedge stacks, process-log narration, and negative judgments broader than the evidence.
- Keep or relocate a real scope condition, source-status distinction, rival explanation, contradiction, negative finding, ethical caveat, or method limitation whenever it changes how the claim must be read.
- When uncertain, retain the wording and register a query. Do not convert possible to certain, report to observation, authorization to delivery, sequence to mechanism, or a bounded case result to a general law.

Read `references/triage-and-regression.md` before classifying candidates. For the Dalian *Urban Geography* manuscript, also read `references/urban-geography-guardrails.md` before any diagnosis or revision.
Back to top