rhetorical-structure-quality
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
(Proposal, unverified) Judge whether argumentative relations between unit-classification's rhetorical labels actually hold in a paper (e.g. is an AIM label adequately substantiated by BACKGROUND labels) — a second-order quality judgment over already-classified units, not raw text. Use this after unit-classification has labeled a paper's units with a rhetorical/argumentative label set, when the user wants to know if the paper's argument structure is actually sound, not just what role each sentence plays.
In this repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- acu-nugget-recallSkill
- argumentative-zoningSkill
- atomic-unit-matchingSkill
- atomic-unit-recall-aggregateSkill
- atomic-unit-writingSkill
- claim-label-predictionSkill
- claim-writingSkill
- domain-level-judgmentSkill
- dual-column-self-checkSkill
- engineering-config-gradingSkill
- first-pass-skimSkill
- keshav-three-passSkill
- multi-stage-cascade-extractionSkill
- paper-fetchSkill
- qalmriSkill
- qalmri-worksheetSkill
- qasper-evidence-qaSkill
- quality-appraisal-checklistSkill
- question-framingSkill
- rationale-selectionSkill
- reforms-gradingSkill
- reporting-standard-checklistSkill
- reproducibility-third-party-verificationSkill
- research-question-appraisalSkill
- second-pass-graspSkill
- signalling-question-answeringSkill
- star-awardingSkill
- study-design-tool-gateSkill
- sum-threshold-scoringSkill
- template-slot-fillingSkill
- third-pass-deep-readSkill
- unit-classificationSkill
- unit-segmentationSkill
- worst-case-lookupSkill
The file
Files
Rhetorical Structure Quality (Proposal)
Second-order SOP: judges whether rhetorical/argumentative labels (from unit-classification) actually substantiate each other, e.g. AIM vs BACKGROUND. Fills a gap in the evaluative-stance × content-layer matrix (quality-judgment × argumentative-rhetorical-role) that no verified method covers — this is a design proposal, not a transcription of an established methodology.
Execution
Subagent — spawned via spawn-agent skill.
Proposal Status — Read Before Modifying
This SOP has no primary-source precedent (unlike CoreSC/AZ, which it consumes labels from). Its description explicitly says "(Proposal, unverified)" so it is never triggered with the same implied confidence as a verified method. Do not remove that qualifier from the description without re-validating the method against real usage first.
<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->Available SOPs
| SOP | When to use |
| spawn-agent | Spawn a customized CC subagent with full MCP tool access. |
<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->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.