agentleFS
MidnightDarlingMidnightDarling/collate/skills/kaozheng/SKILL.md

kaozheng

Skill8 starsChanged 7 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when a historical paper or final draft needs evidential scrutiny: warrants, citations, source rank, truncation risk, or argument structure must be audited rather than stylistically interpreted.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    If only raw.md exists, note that the text has not yet been proofread and mark the report accordingly.

    line 37
  2. Distinctive:

    Read the argument in layers:

    line 42
  3. Distinctive:

    Never modify the source text.

    line 71
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not confuse disagreement with disproof.

    line 72
  5. Distinctive:

    If verification is impossible from available material, mark it as unverified rather than pretending certainty.

    line 74

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

kaozheng

The work this skill is for

This is not typo-catching. That is proofread.

kaozheng reads in the Qian-Jia evidential tradition: not asking whether the paper sounds plausible, but whether its evidentiary bridge bears weight. The source may be real and the bridge still false. A citation may be accurate and still be pressed into service beyond what it can support.

What it audits

For a post-OCR, post-proofread paper, test:

  • whether the claim is actually supported by the data cited
  • whether quotations are complete enough to preserve original sense
  • whether cited authorities are first-rank, second-rank, or hearsay
  • whether the warrant is visible and defensible
  • whether the paper leans on a solitary witness (孤证不立)

Input

Target: $ARGUMENTS

  • workspace directory → read <ws>/final.md
  • .md file → read it directly
  • empty → ask what to read

If only raw.md exists, note that the text has not yet been proofread and mark the report accordingly.

Method

Read the argument in layers:

  1. Extract the paper's main claims.
  2. Pair each claim with its offered evidence.
  3. Identify the warrant that connects the two.
  4. Audit quotations and citation framing:
    • what is quoted
    • what is omitted
    • what rank the source holds
    • whether a footnote quietly carries more force than the body text
  5. Flag cardinal errors first; breadth comes second.

The framework is a scale, not a blade. Do not deform the paper merely to force it into Toulmin language.

Output

  • workspace mode → <workspace>/analysis/{stem}_kaozheng.md
  • single-file mode → analysis/{stem}_kaozheng.md

Report structure:

  1. Argument skeleton — claim / data / warrant / backing / qualifier / rebuttal
  2. Citation audit table — original fragment → suspected source → verifiable? → truncated?
  3. Cardinal errors — one to three, ranked by severity, with repair suggestions
  4. Suspicious but unverified — handed off for further checking

Guardrails

  • Never modify the source text.
  • Do not confuse disagreement with disproof.
  • One decisive structural error outweighs twenty decorative observations.
  • If verification is impossible from available material, mark it as unverified rather than pretending certainty.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.