{ "schemaVersion": "1.0", "item": { "slug": "bookwriter", "name": "book_writer", "source": "tencent", "type": "skill", "category": "效率提升", "sourceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/EithyHe/bookwriter", "canonicalUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/EithyHe/bookwriter", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw" }, "install": { "downloadMode": "redirect", "downloadUrl": "/downloads/bookwriter", "sourceDownloadUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=bookwriter", "sourcePlatform": "tencent", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw", "installMethod": "Manual import", "extraction": "Extract archive", "prerequisites": [ "OpenClaw" ], "packageFormat": "ZIP package", "includedAssets": [ "SKILL.md", "references/ieee_formatting_specs.md", "references/acm_formatting_specs.md", "references/writing_style_guide.md" ], "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "quickSetup": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.", "Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup." ], "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract it into a folder your agent can access.", "Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run." } ] }, "sourceHealth": { "source": "tencent", "status": "healthy", "reason": "direct_download_ok", "recommendedAction": "download", "checkedAt": "2026-04-30T16:55:25.780Z", "expiresAt": "2026-05-07T16:55:25.780Z", "httpStatus": 200, "finalUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=network", "contentType": "application/zip", "probeMethod": "head", "details": { "probeUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=network", "contentDisposition": "attachment; filename=\"network-1.0.0.zip\"", "redirectLocation": null, "bodySnippet": null }, "scope": "source", "summary": "Source download looks usable.", "detail": "Yavira can redirect you to the upstream package for this source.", "primaryActionLabel": "Download for OpenClaw", "primaryActionHref": "/downloads/bookwriter" }, "validation": { "installChecklist": [ "Use the Yavira download entry.", "Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.", "Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets." ], "postInstallChecks": [ "Confirm the extracted package includes the expected docs or setup files.", "Validate the skill or prompts are available in your target agent workspace.", "Capture any manual follow-up steps the agent could not complete." ] }, "downloadPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/bookwriter", "agentPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/bookwriter/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/bookwriter/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/bookwriter/agent.md" }, "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract it into a folder your agent can access.", "Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run." } ] }, "documentation": { "source": "clawhub", "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "sections": [ { "title": "Overview", "body": "This skill is designed exclusively for writing book manuscripts,\ntheoretical chapters, and argument-driven academic essays.\n\nIt does NOT generate IMRaD-style conference or journal papers.\n\nThe fundamental unit of writing is:\n\nA viewpoint-style subtitle\n→ followed by a structured 800--1000 word argument unit." }, { "title": "1. Understanding the main point", "body": "When asked to write a book chapter:\n\nClarify the topic and scope with the user\n\nWhat is the central argument or core claim of this chapter?\nWho is the intended audience (e.g., general academic readers, specialists, interdisciplinary scholars)?\nWhat is the desired length (approximate word count or page range)?\nAre there specific structural emphases required (e.g., case analysis, theoretical construction, conceptual integration)?\n\n\n\nRequire a chapter outline from the user\n\n\nThe outline must specify the sequence of unit-level claims — not just topic labels. Each entry should express a proposition.\n\n\nEach outline entry should indicate:\n\n\nThe core claim of that unit\n\n\nIts role in the chapter's argument arc (what it establishes, challenges, or advances)\n\n\nKey concepts, cases, or sources it will mobilize\n\n\n\n\nIf the user provides only topic labels (e.g., \"Section 3: Social Media\"), ask them to convert each into a claim (e.g., \"Section 3: Platform Algorithms Reshape Collective Attention Rather Than Merely Reflecting It\").\n\n\nIf no outline is provided, do NOT proceed to generation. Instead, collaborate with the user to construct one first.\n\n\n\n\nGather context if needed\n\nA user-specified directory containing selected literature or reference documents\n\n\nSupplied research materials, empirical data, or cited sources\n\n\nThe relevant theoretical, methodological, and domain background" }, { "title": "2. Chapter Structure", "body": "A chapter is not a collection of loosely related paragraphs. It is an argument arc composed of discrete, load-bearing units. Each unit advances one identifiable proposition; together, they form a chain of reasoning that moves the chapter from its opening question to its concluding position.\n\nA chapter is a sequence of argument units. Each unit is a self-contained analytical move of 800–1000 words, organized around a single core claim crystallized as a subtitle. The subtitle is not a topic label — it is a compressed thesis. For example, \"The Limits of Rational Choice\" is a label; \"Rational Choice Fails When Preferences Are Endogenous\" is a claim.\n\n\nUnits are ordered by logical dependency, not by topic proximity. Unit N must create the conditions — conceptual, evidential, or logical — that make Unit N+1 possible. If two units can be swapped without loss of coherence, the chapter's argumentative spine is weak and must be restructured.\n\n\nA chapter typically contains 4–7 units. Fewer than 4 suggests the argument is underdeveloped; more than 7 suggests the chapter tries to do too much and should be split.\n\nEvery unit must pass a single gatekeeping question: can this unit be removed without weakening the chapter's argument? If yes, the unit fails — it is decoration, not structure. Cut it or reconceive it until it becomes load-bearing." }, { "title": "3. Unit Generator", "body": "Each unit FOLLOWS the five-phase structure below. These phases are not optional sections to fill in — they are functional stages of an analytical move. A unit that skips a phase will be structurally incomplete.\n\nPhase 1: Opening Claim (Positioning) — 3–5 sentences\n\nDirectly state the unit's core proposition.\nThe subtitle must express a defensible, non-trivial claim —\nnot a neutral description or general background.\n\nRequired:\n- A clear argumentative position (what this unit asserts)\n- Conceptual direction (where the reasoning will head)\n\nTest: If the opening can belong to a textbook summary,\n it is too neutral. Rewrite.\n\n\nPhase 2: Tension or Problem Field\n\nExplain WHY the claim matters by surfacing the friction it addresses.\nThis may take the form of:\n- An empirical case that resists easy explanation\n- A practice dilemma where existing frameworks fall short\n- A conceptual conflict between competing accounts\n- A theoretical ambiguity that prior work has glossed over\n\nNarrative and example are permitted only insofar as they serve analysis.\nAny story told here must generate a question, not merely illustrate a point.\n\n\nPhase 3: Analytical Development (Core Section)\n\nThis is the structural center of the unit —\nwhere the actual intellectual work happens.\nMust include:\n- Concept clarification: define or sharpen the key terms at stake\n- Logical decomposition: break the claim into its constituent parts\n- Mechanism explanation: show HOW or WHY the claimed relationship holds\n- Structured reasoning: build the argument through explicit inferential steps\n\nRequired: At least two explicit logical progression markers\n(e.g., however, therefore, further, in contrast, this implies).\nTheir presence is a proxy for actual argumentative movement —\nif the prose flows without them, it is likely describing rather than reasoning.\n\n\nPhase 4: Conceptual Elevation\n\nMove from the specific to the abstract.\nThis phase transforms the analytical work of Phase 3\ninto a broader intellectual contribution:\n- Introduce or refine a concept\n- Reframe the reader's understanding of a familiar phenomenon\n- Shift the interpretive lens through which the problem is viewed\n\nTest: The reader should see the issue differently after this phase\n than they did at the beginning of the unit.\n If perception is unchanged, the elevation has failed.\n\n\nPhase 5: Closure and Structural Contribution\n\nConclude by answering three questions explicitly:\n1. What new understanding has emerged from this unit?\n2. How does this advance the chapter's main thread —\n what does the next unit now have access to that it didn't before?\n3. Why is this unit structurally necessary —\n what would collapse without it?\n\nTest: If closure does not produce advancement\n (i.e., the chapter's argument is in the same position\n as before the unit began), regenerate the unit.\n\nEach 800–1000 word unit must satisfy ALL four criteria:\n\nContains at least one identifiable theoretical move (not merely a claim, but a shift in conceptual territory)\nIncludes abstract-level conceptual articulation (not only concrete examples or empirical description)\nProduces structural advancement (the chapter's argument is measurably further along)\nIs indispensable to the chapter's argument (passes the removal test)\n\nA unit that meets three of four is a draft. A unit that meets fewer than three should be discarded and reconceived from scratch." }, { "title": "Content Generation Process", "body": "Step-by-step approach:\n\nValidate the outline\n\nConfirm the user has provided a chapter outline with unit-level claims\nVerify each outline entry specifies: core claim, role in the argument arc,\nkey concepts/cases/sources\nCheck that the unit sequence follows logical dependency —\nUnit N must create the conditions for Unit N+1\nIf the outline contains fewer than 4 or more than 7 units,\ndiscuss with the user whether to expand or split\n\n\nDraft units iteratively\n\nGenerate one unit at a time, following the five-phase structure\n(Opening Claim → Tension → Analytical Development →\nConceptual Elevation → Closure)\nStart with the pivot unit — the unit that makes\nthe chapter's most consequential theoretical move (typically Unit 3 or 4)\nThen draft backward — write the units that build toward the pivot\nThen draft forward — write the units that extend from the pivot\ntoward the chapter's concluding position\nWrite the chapter opening last\nRun the Unit Quality Gate after each unit before proceeding to the next\n\n\nBuild inter-unit transitions\n\nReview the closure of each unit against the opening of the next\nPhase 5 of Unit N should connect directly to Phase 1 of Unit N+1\nAdd bridging language where the logical handoff is not self-evident\nEliminate redundant restatements that slow momentum\n\n\nIntegrate sources and references\n\nEmbed references within Analytical Development (Phase 3)\nwhere they support reasoning\nEach unit should engage with at least one identifiable source\nor intellectual tradition\nDistinguish between sources used as evidence,\nsources used as interlocutors, and sources used as conceptual tools\nCompile a complete reference list and verify all in-text citations\n\n\nReview and refine\n\nArgument coherence: read only the subtitles in sequence —\nthey should form a legible argument on their own\nIndispensability test: for each unit, ask whether the chapter's\nargument would collapse without it\nConceptual consistency: key terms should carry the same meaning throughout,\nany shift in meaning must be explicitly marked\nProgression check: the chapter must end in a different intellectual position\nfrom where it began\nElevation audit: at least half of the units should contain a Phase 4 move\nthat genuinely reframes understanding" }, { "title": "DESIGN PHILOSOPHY", "body": "Book writing is treated as structured intellectual advancement through\nmodular argument units.\n\nEach section functions as a self-contained yet structurally necessary\nconceptual movement." }, { "title": "Examples", "body": "Example 1: User asks to write a chapter on a broad topic\n\nUser: \"帮我写一章关于人工智能对教育评价体系影响的内容\"\n\nResponse:\n1. Clarify scope:\n \"我来帮你撰写这一章。先确认几个问题：\n - 这一章的核心论点是什么？比如'AI正在瓦解工业时代的标准化评价逻辑'\n 还是'AI使多维评价从理念走向技术可行'？\n - 目标读者是教育研究者、政策制定者，还是更广泛的教育工作者？\n - 预期篇幅（5000字、8000字、10000字）？\n - 这一章在全书中的位置——前面的章节已经建立了哪些概念基础？\"\n\n2. Require outline:\n \"请提供本章的单元级大纲，每个条目需要是一个命题而非标签。例如：\n - ✗ '第一节：传统评价体系'（标签）\n - ✓ '第一节：标准化考试的底层逻辑是工业时代对可量化劳动力的筛选需求'（命题）\n 如果你目前只有大致思路，我们可以先一起把大纲搭建出来。\"\n\n3. After outline is confirmed, draft units iteratively:\n - Identify the pivot unit (e.g., \"AI使过程性数据采集成为可能，\n 从而瓦解了终结性评价的垄断地位\")\n - Draft pivot unit first, then backward, then forward\n - Run Unit Quality Gate after each unit\n - Build inter-unit transitions\n - Write chapter opening last\n\nExample 2: User provides an outline and asks to generate\n\nUser: \"我已经有大纲了，请根据以下大纲帮我写第三章：\n 1. 知识的本质正在从确定性走向概率性\n 2. 课程体系的学科边界在AI时代失去了认识论基础\n 3. 动态知识图谱为跨学科课程提供了技术可能\n 4. 学习内容的更新速度必须匹配知识生产的速度\n 5. 未来课程的核心不是知识本身而是知识生产的方法\"\n\nResponse:\n1. Validate outline:\n - 5个单元，数量合理\n - 每个条目都是命题，符合要求\n - 检查逻辑依赖：单元1（认识论基础）→ 单元2（制度性后果）\n → 单元3（技术条件）→ 单元4（时间维度要求）→ 单元5（范式结论）\n - 逻辑链条成立，确认进入生成\n\n2. Identify pivot unit:\n - 单元3是枢纽——它将前两个单元的理论批判转化为建设性方案，\n 为后两个单元提供技术前提\n\n3. Draft in order: 单元3 → 单元2 → 单元1 → 单元4 → 单元5 → 章节开头\n - Each unit follows five-phase structure\n (Opening Claim → Tension → Analytical Development\n → Conceptual Elevation → Closure)\n - Each unit 800-1000 words\n - Run Unit Quality Gate after each\n\n4. Build transitions and integrate references\n5. Review: read subtitles in sequence, confirm argument arc holds\n\nExample 3: User provides reference materials and a vague direction\n\nUser: \"我有一些关于AI教师角色转变的文献资料，放在 /docs/teacher_role/ 目录下，\n帮我写一章关于教师角色的内容\"\n\nResponse:\n1. Read reference materials in the specified directory\n\n2. Clarify direction:\n \"我已阅读了你提供的文献。在此基础上需要确认：\n - 本章的核心主张是什么？文献中有几种不同取向：\n a) 教师从知识传授者转变为学习设计师\n b) AI替代了教师的部分功能但强化了其不可替代的部分\n c) 教师角色的转变是整个教育系统重构的缩影\n 请选择一" }, { "title": "references/", "body": "writing_style_guide.md: Detailed academic writing conventions extracted from example papers\nieee_formatting_specs.md: Complete IEEE formatting specifications\nacm_formatting_specs.md: Complete ACM formatting specifications" }, { "title": "Important Notes", "body": "Always ask for clarification on topic scope before starting\nQuality over speed: Take time to structure properly and write clearly\nCite appropriately: Academic integrity requires proper attribution\nBe honest about limitations: Acknowledge gaps or constraints in the research\nMaintain consistency: Terminology, notation, and style throughout\nUser provides the research content: This skill structures and writes; the user provides the technical contributions and findings" } ], "body": "Book Manuscript Writer\nOverview\n\nThis skill is designed exclusively for writing book manuscripts, theoretical chapters, and argument-driven academic essays.\n\nIt does NOT generate IMRaD-style conference or journal papers.\n\nThe fundamental unit of writing is:\n\nA viewpoint-style subtitle\n→ followed by a structured 800--1000 word argument unit.\n\nworkflow\n1. Understanding the main point\n\nWhen asked to write a book chapter:\n\nClarify the topic and scope with the user\n\nWhat is the central argument or core claim of this chapter?\nWho is the intended audience (e.g., general academic readers, specialists, interdisciplinary scholars)?\nWhat is the desired length (approximate word count or page range)?\nAre there specific structural emphases required (e.g., case analysis, theoretical construction, conceptual integration)?\n\nRequire a chapter outline from the user\n\nThe outline must specify the sequence of unit-level claims — not just topic labels. Each entry should express a proposition.\n\nEach outline entry should indicate:\n\nThe core claim of that unit\n\nIts role in the chapter's argument arc (what it establishes, challenges, or advances)\n\nKey concepts, cases, or sources it will mobilize\n\nIf the user provides only topic labels (e.g., \"Section 3: Social Media\"), ask them to convert each into a claim (e.g., \"Section 3: Platform Algorithms Reshape Collective Attention Rather Than Merely Reflecting It\").\n\nIf no outline is provided, do NOT proceed to generation. Instead, collaborate with the user to construct one first.\n\nGather context if needed\n\nA user-specified directory containing selected literature or reference documents\n\nSupplied research materials, empirical data, or cited sources\n\nThe relevant theoretical, methodological, and domain background\n\n2. Chapter Structure\n\nA chapter is not a collection of loosely related paragraphs. It is an argument arc composed of discrete, load-bearing units. Each unit advances one identifiable proposition; together, they form a chain of reasoning that moves the chapter from its opening question to its concluding position.\n\nA chapter is a sequence of argument units. Each unit is a self-contained analytical move of 800–1000 words, organized around a single core claim crystallized as a subtitle. The subtitle is not a topic label — it is a compressed thesis. For example, \"The Limits of Rational Choice\" is a label; \"Rational Choice Fails When Preferences Are Endogenous\" is a claim.\n\nUnits are ordered by logical dependency, not by topic proximity. Unit N must create the conditions — conceptual, evidential, or logical — that make Unit N+1 possible. If two units can be swapped without loss of coherence, the chapter's argumentative spine is weak and must be restructured.\n\nA chapter typically contains 4–7 units. Fewer than 4 suggests the argument is underdeveloped; more than 7 suggests the chapter tries to do too much and should be split.\n\nEvery unit must pass a single gatekeeping question: can this unit be removed without weakening the chapter's argument? If yes, the unit fails — it is decoration, not structure. Cut it or reconceive it until it becomes load-bearing.\n\n3. Unit Generator\n\nEach unit FOLLOWS the five-phase structure below. These phases are not optional sections to fill in — they are functional stages of an analytical move. A unit that skips a phase will be structurally incomplete.\n\nPhase 1: Opening Claim (Positioning) — 3–5 sentences\n\nDirectly state the unit's core proposition.\nThe subtitle must express a defensible, non-trivial claim —\nnot a neutral description or general background.\n\nRequired:\n- A clear argumentative position (what this unit asserts)\n- Conceptual direction (where the reasoning will head)\n\nTest: If the opening can belong to a textbook summary,\n it is too neutral. Rewrite.\n\n\nPhase 2: Tension or Problem Field\n\nExplain WHY the claim matters by surfacing the friction it addresses.\nThis may take the form of:\n- An empirical case that resists easy explanation\n- A practice dilemma where existing frameworks fall short\n- A conceptual conflict between competing accounts\n- A theoretical ambiguity that prior work has glossed over\n\nNarrative and example are permitted only insofar as they serve analysis.\nAny story told here must generate a question, not merely illustrate a point.\n\n\nPhase 3: Analytical Development (Core Section)\n\nThis is the structural center of the unit —\nwhere the actual intellectual work happens.\nMust include:\n- Concept clarification: define or sharpen the key terms at stake\n- Logical decomposition: break the claim into its constituent parts\n- Mechanism explanation: show HOW or WHY the claimed relationship holds\n- Structured reasoning: build the argument through explicit inferential steps\n\nRequired: At least two explicit logical progression markers\n(e.g., however, therefore, further, in contrast, this implies).\nTheir presence is a proxy for actual argumentative movement —\nif the prose flows without them, it is likely describing rather than reasoning.\n\n\nPhase 4: Conceptual Elevation\n\nMove from the specific to the abstract.\nThis phase transforms the analytical work of Phase 3\ninto a broader intellectual contribution:\n- Introduce or refine a concept\n- Reframe the reader's understanding of a familiar phenomenon\n- Shift the interpretive lens through which the problem is viewed\n\nTest: The reader should see the issue differently after this phase\n than they did at the beginning of the unit.\n If perception is unchanged, the elevation has failed.\n\n\nPhase 5: Closure and Structural Contribution\n\nConclude by answering three questions explicitly:\n1. What new understanding has emerged from this unit?\n2. How does this advance the chapter's main thread —\n what does the next unit now have access to that it didn't before?\n3. Why is this unit structurally necessary —\n what would collapse without it?\n\nTest: If closure does not produce advancement\n (i.e., the chapter's argument is in the same position\n as before the unit began), regenerate the unit.\n\n\nEach 800–1000 word unit must satisfy ALL four criteria:\n\nContains at least one identifiable theoretical move (not merely a claim, but a shift in conceptual territory)\nIncludes abstract-level conceptual articulation (not only concrete examples or empirical description)\nProduces structural advancement (the chapter's argument is measurably further along)\nIs indispensable to the chapter's argument (passes the removal test)\n\nA unit that meets three of four is a draft. A unit that meets fewer than three should be discarded and reconceived from scratch.\n\nContent Generation Process\n\nStep-by-step approach:\n\nValidate the outline\nConfirm the user has provided a chapter outline with unit-level claims\nVerify each outline entry specifies: core claim, role in the argument arc, key concepts/cases/sources\nCheck that the unit sequence follows logical dependency — Unit N must create the conditions for Unit N+1\nIf the outline contains fewer than 4 or more than 7 units, discuss with the user whether to expand or split\nDraft units iteratively\nGenerate one unit at a time, following the five-phase structure (Opening Claim → Tension → Analytical Development → Conceptual Elevation → Closure)\nStart with the pivot unit — the unit that makes the chapter's most consequential theoretical move (typically Unit 3 or 4)\nThen draft backward — write the units that build toward the pivot\nThen draft forward — write the units that extend from the pivot toward the chapter's concluding position\nWrite the chapter opening last\nRun the Unit Quality Gate after each unit before proceeding to the next\nBuild inter-unit transitions\nReview the closure of each unit against the opening of the next\nPhase 5 of Unit N should connect directly to Phase 1 of Unit N+1\nAdd bridging language where the logical handoff is not self-evident\nEliminate redundant restatements that slow momentum\nIntegrate sources and references\nEmbed references within Analytical Development (Phase 3) where they support reasoning\nEach unit should engage with at least one identifiable source or intellectual tradition\nDistinguish between sources used as evidence, sources used as interlocutors, and sources used as conceptual tools\nCompile a complete reference list and verify all in-text citations\nReview and refine\nArgument coherence: read only the subtitles in sequence — they should form a legible argument on their own\nIndispensability test: for each unit, ask whether the chapter's argument would collapse without it\nConceptual consistency: key terms should carry the same meaning throughout, any shift in meaning must be explicitly marked\nProgression check: the chapter must end in a different intellectual position from where it began\nElevation audit: at least half of the units should contain a Phase 4 move that genuinely reframes understanding\nDESIGN PHILOSOPHY\n\nBook writing is treated as structured intellectual advancement through modular argument units.\n\nEach section functions as a self-contained yet structurally necessary conceptual movement.\n\nExamples\n\nExample 1: User asks to write a chapter on a broad topic\n\nUser: \"帮我写一章关于人工智能对教育评价体系影响的内容\"\n\nResponse:\n1. Clarify scope:\n \"我来帮你撰写这一章。先确认几个问题：\n - 这一章的核心论点是什么？比如'AI正在瓦解工业时代的标准化评价逻辑'\n 还是'AI使多维评价从理念走向技术可行'？\n - 目标读者是教育研究者、政策制定者，还是更广泛的教育工作者？\n - 预期篇幅（5000字、8000字、10000字）？\n - 这一章在全书中的位置——前面的章节已经建立了哪些概念基础？\"\n\n2. Require outline:\n \"请提供本章的单元级大纲，每个条目需要是一个命题而非标签。例如：\n - ✗ '第一节：传统评价体系'（标签）\n - ✓ '第一节：标准化考试的底层逻辑是工业时代对可量化劳动力的筛选需求'（命题）\n 如果你目前只有大致思路，我们可以先一起把大纲搭建出来。\"\n\n3. After outline is confirmed, draft units iteratively:\n - Identify the pivot unit (e.g., \"AI使过程性数据采集成为可能，\n 从而瓦解了终结性评价的垄断地位\")\n - Draft pivot unit first, then backward, then forward\n - Run Unit Quality Gate after each unit\n - Build inter-unit transitions\n - Write chapter opening last\n\n\nExample 2: User provides an outline and asks to generate\n\nUser: \"我已经有大纲了，请根据以下大纲帮我写第三章：\n 1. 知识的本质正在从确定性走向概率性\n 2. 课程体系的学科边界在AI时代失去了认识论基础\n 3. 动态知识图谱为跨学科课程提供了技术可能\n 4. 学习内容的更新速度必须匹配知识生产的速度\n 5. 未来课程的核心不是知识本身而是知识生产的方法\"\n\nResponse:\n1. Validate outline:\n - 5个单元，数量合理\n - 每个条目都是命题，符合要求\n - 检查逻辑依赖：单元1（认识论基础）→ 单元2（制度性后果）\n → 单元3（技术条件）→ 单元4（时间维度要求）→ 单元5（范式结论）\n - 逻辑链条成立，确认进入生成\n\n2. Identify pivot unit:\n - 单元3是枢纽——它将前两个单元的理论批判转化为建设性方案，\n 为后两个单元提供技术前提\n\n3. Draft in order: 单元3 → 单元2 → 单元1 → 单元4 → 单元5 → 章节开头\n - Each unit follows five-phase structure\n (Opening Claim → Tension → Analytical Development\n → Conceptual Elevation → Closure)\n - Each unit 800-1000 words\n - Run Unit Quality Gate after each\n\n4. Build transitions and integrate references\n5. Review: read subtitles in sequence, confirm argument arc holds\n\n\nExample 3: User provides reference materials and a vague direction\n\nUser: \"我有一些关于AI教师角色转变的文献资料，放在 /docs/teacher_role/ 目录下，\n帮我写一章关于教师角色的内容\"\n\nResponse:\n1. Read reference materials in the specified directory\n\n2. Clarify direction:\n \"我已阅读了你提供的文献。在此基础上需要确认：\n - 本章的核心主张是什么？文献中有几种不同取向：\n a) 教师从知识传授者转变为学习设计师\n b) AI替代了教师的部分功能但强化了其不可替代的部分\n c) 教师角色的转变是整个教育系统重构的缩影\n 请选择一\n\nResources\nreferences/\nwriting_style_guide.md: Detailed academic writing conventions extracted from example papers\nieee_formatting_specs.md: Complete IEEE formatting specifications\nacm_formatting_specs.md: Complete ACM formatting specifications\nImportant Notes\nAlways ask for clarification on topic scope before starting\nQuality over speed: Take time to structure properly and write clearly\nCite appropriately: Academic integrity requires proper attribution\nBe honest about limitations: Acknowledge gaps or constraints in the research\nMaintain consistency: Terminology, notation, and style throughout\nUser provides the research content: This skill structures and writes; the user provides the technical contributions and findings" }, "trust": { "sourceLabel": "tencent", "provenanceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/EithyHe/bookwriter", "publisherUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/EithyHe/bookwriter", "owner": "EithyHe", "version": "1.0.0", "license": null, "verificationStatus": "Indexed source record" }, "links": { "detailUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/bookwriter", "downloadUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/bookwriter", "agentUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/bookwriter/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/bookwriter/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/bookwriter/agent.md" } }