humanities-mla
Skill1 starsChanged 34 days agoMITView on GitHub
Write an argumentative humanities essay in MLA style — Introduction with an explicit thesis, body argument sections, a Conclusion, MLA author-page in-text citations (e.g. (Author 42)), and a Works Cited list. Use when the deliverable is a humanities argument built on interpretation rather than an empirical IMRaD paper. Anti-trigger; for an empirical Method/Results report use academic, for the Chicago note-bibliography convention use humanities-chicago.
In this repository46 other files it gives its agents.
- academicSkill
- adrSkill
- ai-architecture-docSkill
- arc42-arch-docSkill
- audit-docsSkill
- briefingSkill
- business-planSkill
- c4-model-diagramSkill
- changelogSkill
- clinical-submissionSkill
- competitive-quadrantSkill
- compliance-auditSkill
- computing-paperSkill
- diataxis-explanationSkill
- diataxis-how-toSkill
- diataxis-referenceSkill
- diataxis-tutorialSkill
- doc-set-plannerSkill
- ears-acceptance-criteriaSkill
- engineeringSkill
- exec-summarySkill
- feature-specSkill
- google-design-docSkill
- humanities-chicagoSkill
- kiro-designSkill
- kiro-requirementsSkill
- kiro-tasksSkill
- legal-memoSkill
- market-research-reportSkill
- mif-corpusSkill
- mif-frontmatterSkill
- mif-provenanceSkill
- mif-to-pdfSkill
- mif-validateSkill
- nist-spSkill
- playbookSkill
- prdSkill
- python-pepSkill
- regulatory-disclosureSkill
- rust-rfcSkill
- security-pentestSkill
- sre-runbookSkill
- sustainability-reportSkill
- svg-chartsSkill
- systematic-reviewSkill
- trend-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 46
Every claim traces to a cited source via its author-page citation.
- Very specific: line 50
When drawing from a verified findings corpus, do not silently drop weakened or inconclusive findings — annotate them with an explicit …
- Distinctive: line 55
Exhaustive coverage: when a findings corpus is supplied, build the essay from the full surviving set — every surviving finding is treated …
- Very specific: line 64
No raw internal identifiers (urn:mif: or similar) leak into prose or citations.
≈ “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.
Files
humanities-mla
Produces an argumentative humanities essay in MLA style: a thesis-driven argument built through close reading and interpretation, cited with MLA author-page in-text citations and a Works Cited list. Its center of gravity is the thesis — every body section exists to advance it through evidence and interpretation, not to report a method or results. This genre follows the MLA Handbook, 9th edition citation and Works Cited convention.
Scope caveat (carry, do not over-attribute): MLA author-page is a presentation/citation convention. The genre reproduces the argumentative structure and citation form; it does not certify scholarly sufficiency. Verify the current MLA Handbook edition live at authoring time (the 9th edition is current); do not bake an edition number into output as settled fact beyond what was verified.
Pattern (industry: MLA 9th-edition humanities essay)
- Introduction — context and an explicit thesis the essay will argue.
- Body argument sections — one per major claim, each developing claim, evidence, and interpretation; sections build the argument cumulatively.
- Conclusion — what the argument establishes and why it matters; no new evidence introduced here.
- Works Cited — the alphabetized list of every source cited, MLA style.
There is no Method and no Results section — the essay argues; it does not report an experiment.
Citation style
MLA author-page in-text citations, e.g. (Author 42) — the author's
surname and the page locator in parentheses — resolving to a Works Cited
list, never author-date parentheticals or numbered footnotes. Each in-text
citation resolves to a real, verifiable source (or a bound MIF finding @id
and its source URL, at the MIF Level 3 floor); no uncited claims and no
fabricated sources.
Rules
- Every claim traces to a cited source via its author-page citation; no orphan facts.
- State the limits of the reading honestly; engage counter-interpretations. An unaddressed strong counter-reading is a defect.
- When drawing from a verified findings corpus, do not silently drop
weakenedorinconclusivefindings — annotate them with an explicit uncertainty qualifier. Exclude onlyfalsifiedfindings. - Hedge uncertain interpretations; do not over-attribute when sources are contested.
- Exhaustive coverage: when a findings corpus is supplied, build the essay from the full surviving set — every surviving finding is treated with its own evidence, never condensed to a cherry-picked subset.
- Figures or tables appear only where the argument genuinely needs them, captioned and referenced; any diagram is a fenced Mermaid code block, never ASCII art or an image link. Plain tabular matter stays a Markdown table.
- The Works Cited list is alphabetized by author surname, MLA style, and is required back matter — never omitted, never renamed References or Bibliography.
- No raw internal identifiers (
urn:mif:or similar) leak into prose or citations.
Anti-triggers — do not use this genre for
- An empirical report with a Method and Results section — that is
academic: IMRaD structure, testable method, reported findings, not an interpretive argument. - A humanities argument cited Chicago note-bibliography style (superscript
notes + a Bibliography) rather than MLA author-page parentheticals and a
Works Cited list — that is
humanities-chicago. - A practitioner decision report built around a mandatory options-vs-criteria
comparison table — that is
engineering.
MIF frontmatter
type: semantic — a humanities essay is declarative argumentative knowledge,
not a time-bound event or a step sequence. Climb to L2 with namespace
(humanities-mla/<area>), modified, title, and tags when the drafting
context supplies them. Gate every output with mif-validate at its target
level; the floor is --level 1. Use entity_type: humanities-paper.
Why machine-readable — the point of MIF here
| Question an agent asks | Answered by (frontmatter) |
| Is this reading still current, or has scholarship moved on? | temporal.validFrom / ttl |
| Where did the evidence come from; can I trust it? | provenance (W3C-PROV) + citations[] |
| What does this essay engage with or get formalized by? | typed relationships[] (relates-to, realized-by) |
| Which sources back which claim? | citations[] tied to each in-text author-page citation |
The same document still reads as a human MLA essay and projects losslessly to JSON-LD and back — one artifact, two readers.
The L1 -> L3 climb (two exemplars)
templates/good-l1.md— L1 floor:id,type,created+ body. A complete, valid essay, but opaque to a machine consumer.templates/good.md— L3 (highest this genre supports): addsnamespace,modified,temporalvalidity, W3C-PROVprovenance,citations[]tied to the essay's sources, and a typedrelationships[]graph (e.g.relates-toa related close reading). Validate withmif-validate --level 3.
Author at the highest level the drafting context supports (grade down
rather than fabricate). templates/bad.md shows the antipattern: an essay
with no Works Cited list backing its in-text citations.
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
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.

