[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M71FN37KED38TGSZ8V5MYFG1":3,"skill-same:01M71FN37KED38TGSZ8V5MYFG1":253},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":16,"sourceHtmlUrl":17,"categories":18,"keywords":24,"publishedAt":45,"linkOnly":46,"markdownContent":47,"markdownBody":48,"frontMatter":49,"refName":50,"commitSha":51,"skillDirectory":52,"forksCount":53,"repositoryHtmlUrl":54,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":55,"ownerBlogUrl":56,"ownerDescription":57,"updatedAt":58,"install":59,"resources":72},"01M71FN37KED38TGSZ8V5MYFG1","good-story",null,"Use when the user asks to find, sharpen, evaluate, rewrite, or explain the story in scientific or scholarly materials across disciplines, including manuscripts, grants, paper outlines, abstracts, figures, results, discussions, cover letters, research pitches, high-impact writing, journal fit, significance, novelty, mechanism, paper logic, or why a result matters.","franklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills","franklee16","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F235809094?v=4","01M71ANES0C8SMYKF21NAE7YV0","Weikai Li","01M71ANESNNVKD3FDKBG01ZK5Y",234,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002FLICENSE","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002FSKILL.md",[19],{"categoryNo":20,"categoryName":21,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000021","资料检索与研究","SCENARIO","使用场景",[25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44],"Story","good story","good","scientific","Outlines","research","journal fit","materials","across","sharpen","explain","rewrite","when","use","impact","writing","journal","novelty","fit","figures","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: good-story\ndescription: Use when the user asks to find, sharpen, evaluate, rewrite, or explain the story in scientific or scholarly materials across disciplines, including manuscripts, grants, paper outlines, abstracts, figures, results, discussions, cover letters, research pitches, high-impact writing, journal fit, significance, novelty, mechanism, paper logic, or why a result matters.\n---\n\n# Good Story\n\nMotto: \"story is all you need.\"\n\nUse this general scientific writing skill to extract the strongest research story that the evidence can honestly support, then show why that story works. Treat \"story\" as the organizing logic of a scientific or scholarly claim, not as decoration or hype. Story is all you need; truth is the boundary condition.\n\n## Core Rule\n\nA good scientific story is a resolved tension:\n\n`field belief or need -> important gap -> decisive approach -> surprising\u002Fclarifying evidence -> new claim\u002Fmodel -> consequence for the field`\n\nNever let the story outrun the evidence. If a beautiful story needs data the user has not shown, label it as a candidate story and name the missing proof.\n\n## Source Depth Rule\n\nWhen the user asks for the story of a specific paper, report, dataset, web page, or public material, do not diagnose the story from the title, abstract, press release, citation metadata, or memory alone.\n\nUse the deepest accessible source before producing a story card:\n\n1. Prefer the full text, including methods, results, figures, discussion, limitations, and supplementary notes when they matter.\n2. If the full text is not accessible, say what was accessible and label any output as a provisional source-depth-limited read.\n3. If only a title, DOI, abstract, press release, or citation page is available, do not invent the evidence ladder. Ask for the full material or give a reading plan instead of a final story diagnosis.\n4. When using public sources, paraphrase the material and cite links; do not paste long source passages.\n\nWhen frameworks conflict, use this priority order:\n\n1. Evidence integrity and transparent reporting.\n2. Claim calibration: what the data actually supports.\n3. Research argument: why the claim matters in the field.\n4. Narrative arc: how the reader travels from problem to resolution.\n5. Style and memorability.\n\nLower layers may sharpen higher layers but may not override them.\n\n## Audience Contract Rule\n\nA good paper story must satisfy three different readers at once:\n\n- The editor needs to see why the contribution matters and why the paper deserves attention now.\n- The reviewer needs to see that every important claim is supported by evidence, logic, qualifiers, and answers to likely objections.\n- The field reader needs to understand and remember the one thing they can now think, measure, predict, build, or do differently.\n\nWhen diagnosing a story, do not optimize only for drama or only for completeness. Make the story easy to notice, easy to evaluate, and hard to misread.\n\n## Project Scope\n\n`good-story` is a general research-writing skill, not an ecology skill or a fixed list of supported domains. Its core story logic can be used by researchers from any evidence-based field once the field's materials, evidence hierarchy, claim verbs, audience contract, and review risks are calibrated.\n\nDomain examples are domain calibration packs (领域校准包), not skill boundaries. Ecology, remote sensing, AI4Science, social science, biomedical research, and other examples tune the shared story grammar to a field's vocabulary, stakes, evidentiary standards, causal norms, review risks, and legitimate scope of implication. They do not change the core rule, and they must not smuggle field-specific assumptions into another domain.\n\n## Quick Workflow\n\n1. Inventory the material.\n   - Extract the strongest claims, datasets, methods, contrasts, negative results, controls, limitations, and audience.\n   - Separate direct evidence from interpretation, speculation, and background.\n   - If a manuscript, outline, figure list, or results table is present, map each part to its current narrative job.\n   - Name the audience contract: what an editor, reviewer, and field reader each need from the paper.\n\n2. Find the story candidates.\n   - Identify the protagonist: phenomenon, mechanism, method, organism, dataset, theory, or field problem.\n   - Identify the antagonist: bottleneck, contradiction, dogma, missing mechanism, noisy evidence, scale barrier, or practical need.\n   - Identify the turn: the experiment, comparison, model, or observation that changes what the reader can believe.\n   - Draft 2-4 possible story spines before choosing one.\n\n3. Choose the winning story.\n   - Prefer the story with the clearest central contribution, strongest evidence chain, broadest honest consequence, and easiest retelling.\n   - Downgrade stories that require hidden assumptions, too many equal contributions, chronological lab-history logic, or an audience the evidence cannot satisfy.\n\n4. Build the paper around the story.\n   - Title: the distilled central contribution.\n   - Abstract: context, gap, approach, key evidence, claim, implication.\n   - Introduction: make the reader care, narrow to the gap, show why the gap is solvable now.\n   - Results: a sequence of claim-bearing steps, each supported by a figure or analysis.\n   - Discussion: answer the gap, state what changed, define scope, handle limitations, and point to the next useful question.\n\n5. Explain why it is good.\n   - Name the tension it resolves.\n   - Name the evidence that makes the resolution believable.\n   - Name the audience it activates.\n   - Name how the story serves the editor, the reviewer, and the field reader.\n   - Name the retellable sentence a reader could carry away.\n   - Name any fragility: missing controls, weak causal link, narrow generality, or overclaim risk.\n\n## Story Diagnostics\n\nUse these tests aggressively:\n\n- One-sentence test: Can the paper be retold in one sentence without losing its point?\n- So-what test: Does the claim change what readers think, measure, predict, build, or do?\n- Gap-lock test: Do the results answer the exact gap introduced?\n- Evidence ladder test: Does each figure make the next claim more believable?\n- Antagonist test: Is there a real obstacle, contradiction, or uncertainty, not just \"little is known\"?\n- Causality test: Are causal words backed by causal evidence?\n- Scope test: Is the claim as general as the evidence, but no more?\n- Audience contract test: Would an editor see stakes, a reviewer see warranted logic, and a reader remember the central contribution?\n- Autobiography test: Is the manuscript telling how the authors did the project, or how readers should come to believe the conclusion?\n- Narrative risk test: Has a clean story hidden negative results, limiting evidence, alternative explanations, or uncertainty the reader needs?\n- Memory test: What phrase would a reader remember one year later?\n- Time-layer test: Is this paper strong because of modern framing craft, because of a naturally powerful classic problem, or because it has both?\n\n## Default Output\n\nWhen the user gives materials and asks for a story, return these sections. Localize section labels to the user's language; for Chinese, use the heading translations in `references\u002Fterminology-style.md`.\n\n1. `Best story`: one sharp paragraph.\n2. `Why this story works`: tension, turn, evidence, audience, implication.\n3. `Story spine`: 5-7 beats from field context to consequence.\n4. `Evidence map`: claim -> evidence -> caveat.\n5. `Weak points`: what would make reviewers resist.\n6. `Rewrite targets`: title, abstract, section order, figure order, or key paragraphs as relevant.\n\nFor early projects, include alternate story candidates and rank them. For nearly finished manuscripts, focus on diagnosis and surgical edits.\n\n## Reference Loading\n\nLoad only what is needed:\n\n- Read `references\u002Fstory-principles.md` when sharpening the story logic, abstract, introduction, results sequence, or discussion.\n- Read `references\u002Fstory-learning-strategy.md` when learning from published papers, comparing recent and classic papers, building an exemplar corpus, or diagnosing whether a paper's story strength comes from framing craft, problem choice, or decisive evidence.\n- Read `references\u002Fterminology-style.md` when answering in Chinese, translating story diagnostics, or when output would otherwise mix English writing-framework jargon into Chinese prose.\n- Read `references\u002Fframework-governance.md` when multiple writing frameworks conflict, when the story risks hype, or when the user explicitly emphasizes truth, evidence, limitations, overclaiming, or reviewer resistance.\n- Read `references\u002Foverclaim-calibration.md` when evaluating whether a story is too strong, rewriting claims, preparing abstracts, cover letters, discussions, rebuttals, or high-impact journal framing.\n- Read `references\u002Fcross-domain-transfer.md` when users from any field need to use the skill well, when using the skill outside an already calibrated domain, comparing fields, building a new domain calibration pack, or explaining how the same story logic applies to examples such as ecology, remote sensing, AI4Science, social science, biomedical research, materials, geoscience, or humanities.\n- Read `references\u002Fecology-story-exemplars.md` when the user asks for ecology examples, biodiversity\u002Fecosystem-function stories, conservation ecology stories, or an ecology calibration pack.\n- Read `references\u002Fexemplar-paper-patterns.md` when the user asks for high-impact examples, paper archetypes, or why famous papers are memorable.\n- Read `references\u002Fsource-map.md` when citing the public writing guidance behind this skill or expanding the corpus.\n- Read `examples\u002Fbefore-after.md` when the user asks what the skill does in practice, wants examples, before\u002Fafter rewrites, abstract diagnosis, figure-order examples, or examples of calibrated claims.\n- Read `examples\u002Ffield-mini-cases.md` when the user wants field-specific examples, cross-domain examples, ecology, remote sensing, AI4Science, social science, biomedical, or other domain mini-cases.\n\n## Common Mistakes\n\n- Mistaking chronology for story: lab order is rarely reader logic.\n- Mistaking importance for stakes: \"important topic\" is not a gap unless something consequential is unknown or blocked.\n- Mistaking data volume for evidence: more panels do not help unless each panel moves belief.\n- Mistaking novelty for contribution: new is not enough; the result must change a claim, method, model, or decision.\n- Mistaking speculation for implication: implications must be downstream of demonstrated evidence.\n- Mistaking smooth prose for story: clarity helps, but the core claim and evidence ladder must work first.\n\n## Style\n\nBe blunt about story strength, but do not humiliate the science. Match the user's language. Prefer concrete story beats over generic writing advice. Use vivid labels for the narrative roles when useful, but keep all scientific claims traceable to evidence supplied by the user or cited sources.\n\nIf the user writes in Chinese, answer in polished Chinese by default:\n\n- Use Chinese section headings and Chinese technical terms.\n- Translate writing-framework jargon accurately instead of leaving English terms in the main prose.\n- Keep English only for paper titles, author names, established acronyms, method names without stable Chinese translation, or when the English term prevents ambiguity.\n- When an English term is useful, introduce it once in parentheses after the Chinese term, then use the Chinese term afterward.\n- Do not output hybrid labels such as `Best story`, `Story spine`, `Evidence map`, `turn`, `claim`, `caveat`, `overclaim`, or `reviewer` in a Chinese answer unless quoting source text.\n","# Good Story\n\nMotto: \"story is all you need.\"\n\nUse this general scientific writing skill to extract the strongest research story that the evidence can honestly support, then show why that story works. Treat \"story\" as the organizing logic of a scientific or scholarly claim, not as decoration or hype. Story is all you need; truth is the boundary condition.\n\n## Core Rule\n\nA good scientific story is a resolved tension:\n\n`field belief or need -> important gap -> decisive approach -> surprising\u002Fclarifying evidence -> new claim\u002Fmodel -> consequence for the field`\n\nNever let the story outrun the evidence. If a beautiful story needs data the user has not shown, label it as a candidate story and name the missing proof.\n\n## Source Depth Rule\n\nWhen the user asks for the story of a specific paper, report, dataset, web page, or public material, do not diagnose the story from the title, abstract, press release, citation metadata, or memory alone.\n\nUse the deepest accessible source before producing a story card:\n\n1. Prefer the full text, including methods, results, figures, discussion, limitations, and supplementary notes when they matter.\n2. If the full text is not accessible, say what was accessible and label any output as a provisional source-depth-limited read.\n3. If only a title, DOI, abstract, press release, or citation page is available, do not invent the evidence ladder. Ask for the full material or give a reading plan instead of a final story diagnosis.\n4. When using public sources, paraphrase the material and cite links; do not paste long source passages.\n\nWhen frameworks conflict, use this priority order:\n\n1. Evidence integrity and transparent reporting.\n2. Claim calibration: what the data actually supports.\n3. Research argument: why the claim matters in the field.\n4. Narrative arc: how the reader travels from problem to resolution.\n5. Style and memorability.\n\nLower layers may sharpen higher layers but may not override them.\n\n## Audience Contract Rule\n\nA good paper story must satisfy three different readers at once:\n\n- The editor needs to see why the contribution matters and why the paper deserves attention now.\n- The reviewer needs to see that every important claim is supported by evidence, logic, qualifiers, and answers to likely objections.\n- The field reader needs to understand and remember the one thing they can now think, measure, predict, build, or do differently.\n\nWhen diagnosing a story, do not optimize only for drama or only for completeness. Make the story easy to notice, easy to evaluate, and hard to misread.\n\n## Project Scope\n\n`good-story` is a general research-writing skill, not an ecology skill or a fixed list of supported domains. Its core story logic can be used by researchers from any evidence-based field once the field's materials, evidence hierarchy, claim verbs, audience contract, and review risks are calibrated.\n\nDomain examples are domain calibration packs (领域校准包), not skill boundaries. Ecology, remote sensing, AI4Science, social science, biomedical research, and other examples tune the shared story grammar to a field's vocabulary, stakes, evidentiary standards, causal norms, review risks, and legitimate scope of implication. They do not change the core rule, and they must not smuggle field-specific assumptions into another domain.\n\n## Quick Workflow\n\n1. Inventory the material.\n   - Extract the strongest claims, datasets, methods, contrasts, negative results, controls, limitations, and audience.\n   - Separate direct evidence from interpretation, speculation, and background.\n   - If a manuscript, outline, figure list, or results table is present, map each part to its current narrative job.\n   - Name the audience contract: what an editor, reviewer, and field reader each need from the paper.\n\n2. Find the story candidates.\n   - Identify the protagonist: phenomenon, mechanism, method, organism, dataset, theory, or field problem.\n   - Identify the antagonist: bottleneck, contradiction, dogma, missing mechanism, noisy evidence, scale barrier, or practical need.\n   - Identify the turn: the experiment, comparison, model, or observation that changes what the reader can believe.\n   - Draft 2-4 possible story spines before choosing one.\n\n3. Choose the winning story.\n   - Prefer the story with the clearest central contribution, strongest evidence chain, broadest honest consequence, and easiest retelling.\n   - Downgrade stories that require hidden assumptions, too many equal contributions, chronological lab-history logic, or an audience the evidence cannot satisfy.\n\n4. Build the paper around the story.\n   - Title: the distilled central contribution.\n   - Abstract: context, gap, approach, key evidence, claim, implication.\n   - Introduction: make the reader care, narrow to the gap, show why the gap is solvable now.\n   - Results: a sequence of claim-bearing steps, each supported by a figure or analysis.\n   - Discussion: answer the gap, state what changed, define scope, handle limitations, and point to the next useful question.\n\n5. Explain why it is good.\n   - Name the tension it resolves.\n   - Name the evidence that makes the resolution believable.\n   - Name the audience it activates.\n   - Name how the story serves the editor, the reviewer, and the field reader.\n   - Name the retellable sentence a reader could carry away.\n   - Name any fragility: missing controls, weak causal link, narrow generality, or overclaim risk.\n\n## Story Diagnostics\n\nUse these tests aggressively:\n\n- One-sentence test: Can the paper be retold in one sentence without losing its point?\n- So-what test: Does the claim change what readers think, measure, predict, build, or do?\n- Gap-lock test: Do the results answer the exact gap introduced?\n- Evidence ladder test: Does each figure make the next claim more believable?\n- Antagonist test: Is there a real obstacle, contradiction, or uncertainty, not just \"little is known\"?\n- Causality test: Are causal words backed by causal evidence?\n- Scope test: Is the claim as general as the evidence, but no more?\n- Audience contract test: Would an editor see stakes, a reviewer see warranted logic, and a reader remember the central contribution?\n- Autobiography test: Is the manuscript telling how the authors did the project, or how readers should come to believe the conclusion?\n- Narrative risk test: Has a clean story hidden negative results, limiting evidence, alternative explanations, or uncertainty the reader needs?\n- Memory test: What phrase would a reader remember one year later?\n- Time-layer test: Is this paper strong because of modern framing craft, because of a naturally powerful classic problem, or because it has both?\n\n## Default Output\n\nWhen the user gives materials and asks for a story, return these sections. Localize section labels to the user's language; for Chinese, use the heading translations in `references\u002Fterminology-style.md`.\n\n1. `Best story`: one sharp paragraph.\n2. `Why this story works`: tension, turn, evidence, audience, implication.\n3. `Story spine`: 5-7 beats from field context to consequence.\n4. `Evidence map`: claim -> evidence -> caveat.\n5. `Weak points`: what would make reviewers resist.\n6. `Rewrite targets`: title, abstract, section order, figure order, or key paragraphs as relevant.\n\nFor early projects, include alternate story candidates and rank them. For nearly finished manuscripts, focus on diagnosis and surgical edits.\n\n## Reference Loading\n\nLoad only what is needed:\n\n- Read `references\u002Fstory-principles.md` when sharpening the story logic, abstract, introduction, results sequence, or discussion.\n- Read `references\u002Fstory-learning-strategy.md` when learning from published papers, comparing recent and classic papers, building an exemplar corpus, or diagnosing whether a paper's story strength comes from framing craft, problem choice, or decisive evidence.\n- Read `references\u002Fterminology-style.md` when answering in Chinese, translating story diagnostics, or when output would otherwise mix English writing-framework jargon into Chinese prose.\n- Read `references\u002Fframework-governance.md` when multiple writing frameworks conflict, when the story risks hype, or when the user explicitly emphasizes truth, evidence, limitations, overclaiming, or reviewer resistance.\n- Read `references\u002Foverclaim-calibration.md` when evaluating whether a story is too strong, rewriting claims, preparing abstracts, cover letters, discussions, rebuttals, or high-impact journal framing.\n- Read `references\u002Fcross-domain-transfer.md` when users from any field need to use the skill well, when using the skill outside an already calibrated domain, comparing fields, building a new domain calibration pack, or explaining how the same story logic applies to examples such as ecology, remote sensing, AI4Science, social science, biomedical research, materials, geoscience, or humanities.\n- Read `references\u002Fecology-story-exemplars.md` when the user asks for ecology examples, biodiversity\u002Fecosystem-function stories, conservation ecology stories, or an ecology calibration pack.\n- Read `references\u002Fexemplar-paper-patterns.md` when the user asks for high-impact examples, paper archetypes, or why famous papers are memorable.\n- Read `references\u002Fsource-map.md` when citing the public writing guidance behind this skill or expanding the corpus.\n- Read `examples\u002Fbefore-after.md` when the user asks what the skill does in practice, wants examples, before\u002Fafter rewrites, abstract diagnosis, figure-order examples, or examples of calibrated claims.\n- Read `examples\u002Ffield-mini-cases.md` when the user wants field-specific examples, cross-domain examples, ecology, remote sensing, AI4Science, social science, biomedical, or other domain mini-cases.\n\n## Common Mistakes\n\n- Mistaking chronology for story: lab order is rarely reader logic.\n- Mistaking importance for stakes: \"important topic\" is not a gap unless something consequential is unknown or blocked.\n- Mistaking data volume for evidence: more panels do not help unless each panel moves belief.\n- Mistaking novelty for contribution: new is not enough; the result must change a claim, method, model, or decision.\n- Mistaking speculation for implication: implications must be downstream of demonstrated evidence.\n- Mistaking smooth prose for story: clarity helps, but the core claim and evidence ladder must work first.\n\n## Style\n\nBe blunt about story strength, but do not humiliate the science. Match the user's language. Prefer concrete story beats over generic writing advice. Use vivid labels for the narrative roles when useful, but keep all scientific claims traceable to evidence supplied by the user or cited sources.\n\nIf the user writes in Chinese, answer in polished Chinese by default:\n\n- Use Chinese section headings and Chinese technical terms.\n- Translate writing-framework jargon accurately instead of leaving English terms in the main prose.\n- Keep English only for paper titles, author names, established acronyms, method names without stable Chinese translation, or when the English term prevents ambiguity.\n- When an English term is useful, introduce it once in parentheses after the Chinese term, then use the Chinese term afterward.\n- Do not output hybrid labels such as `Best story`, `Story spine`, `Evidence map`, `turn`, `claim`, `caveat`, `overclaim`, or `reviewer` in a Chinese answer unless quoting source text.\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"master","9a4b2db21fc4b217136ae4a0e6faad42d179ca03","paper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main",36,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16","https:\u002F\u002Fsites.google.com\u002Fview\u002Ffrankweikaili\u002Fhome","Associate Professor of Finance at City University of Hong Kong - empirical asset pricing, behavioral finance, ESG. I build AI tools for research and teaching","2026-09-18 20:12:00",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":60,"prompt":70,"zipAvailable":71},[61,64,67],{"tool":62,"command":63},"npx","npx skills add franklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills --skill good-story",{"tool":65,"command":66},"bunx","bunx skills add franklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills --skill good-story",{"tool":68,"command":69},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add franklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills --skill good-story","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002FSKILL.md",true,[73,79,83,89,95,99,103,107,111,115,119,123,127,131,135,139,143,147,151,155,159,163,167,171,175,179,183,187,191,195,199,203,207,211,215,219,225,229,233,237,241,245,249],{"path":74,"resourceType":75,"resourceTypeDesc":76,"sizeBytes":77,"sourceHtmlUrl":78},".gitattributes","OTHER","其他",122,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002F.gitattributes",{"path":80,"resourceType":75,"resourceTypeDesc":76,"sizeBytes":81,"sourceHtmlUrl":82},".gitignore",113,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002F.gitignore",{"path":84,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":87,"sourceHtmlUrl":88},"agents\u002Fopenai.yaml","REFERENCE","参考文档",241,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fagents\u002Fopenai.yaml",{"path":90,"resourceType":91,"resourceTypeDesc":92,"sizeBytes":93,"sourceHtmlUrl":94},"assets\u002Fgood-story-integrated-banner-1280.png","ASSET","资产文件",507367,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fassets\u002Fgood-story-integrated-banner-1280.png",{"path":96,"resourceType":91,"resourceTypeDesc":92,"sizeBytes":97,"sourceHtmlUrl":98},"assets\u002Fgood-story-integrated-banner-1280.webp",43088,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fassets\u002Fgood-story-integrated-banner-1280.webp",{"path":100,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":101,"sourceHtmlUrl":102},"CHANGELOG.md",6542,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002FCHANGELOG.md",{"path":104,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":105,"sourceHtmlUrl":106},"CONTRIBUTING.md",3193,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002FCONTRIBUTING.md",{"path":108,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":109,"sourceHtmlUrl":110},"docs\u002FFAQ.md",2539,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fdocs\u002FFAQ.md",{"path":112,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":113,"sourceHtmlUrl":114},"docs\u002FOUTPUT_SPEC.md",1647,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fdocs\u002FOUTPUT_SPEC.md",{"path":116,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":117,"sourceHtmlUrl":118},"docs\u002FROADMAP.md",2681,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fdocs\u002FROADMAP.md",{"path":120,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":121,"sourceHtmlUrl":122},"evals\u002Fbaseline-2026-06-02.md",5884,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fevals\u002Fbaseline-2026-06-02.md",{"path":124,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":125,"sourceHtmlUrl":126},"evals\u002Fexternal-feedback-template.md",776,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fevals\u002Fexternal-feedback-template.md",{"path":128,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":129,"sourceHtmlUrl":130},"evals\u002Ffresh-session-run-2026-06-02.md",5002,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fevals\u002Ffresh-session-run-2026-06-02.md",{"path":132,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":133,"sourceHtmlUrl":134},"evals\u002Ffresh-session-runbook.md",3948,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fevals\u002Ffresh-session-runbook.md",{"path":136,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":137,"sourceHtmlUrl":138},"evals\u002Fmature-evidence-2026-06-02.md",4280,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fevals\u002Fmature-evidence-2026-06-02.md",{"path":140,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":141,"sourceHtmlUrl":142},"evals\u002Fmaturity-audit-2026-06-02.md",4423,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fevals\u002Fmaturity-audit-2026-06-02.md",{"path":144,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":145,"sourceHtmlUrl":146},"evals\u002Fpublic-external-feedback-cases.md",5479,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fevals\u002Fpublic-external-feedback-cases.md",{"path":148,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":149,"sourceHtmlUrl":150},"evals\u002FREADME.md",3215,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fevals\u002FREADME.md",{"path":152,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":153,"sourceHtmlUrl":154},"evals\u002Freal-material-smoke-tests.md",17465,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fevals\u002Freal-material-smoke-tests.md",{"path":156,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":157,"sourceHtmlUrl":158},"evals\u002Fscenarios.md",5754,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fevals\u002Fscenarios.md",{"path":160,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":161,"sourceHtmlUrl":162},"examples\u002Fbefore-after.md",4981,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fexamples\u002Fbefore-after.md",{"path":164,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":165,"sourceHtmlUrl":166},"examples\u002Ffield-mini-cases.md",4055,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fexamples\u002Ffield-mini-cases.md",{"path":168,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":169,"sourceHtmlUrl":170},"examples\u002FREADME.md",1406,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fexamples\u002FREADME.md",{"path":172,"resourceType":172,"resourceTypeDesc":173,"sizeBytes":174,"sourceHtmlUrl":16},"LICENSE","许可证",1069,{"path":176,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":177,"sourceHtmlUrl":178},"README.md",37004,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002FREADME.md",{"path":180,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":181,"sourceHtmlUrl":182},"references\u002Fcross-domain-transfer.md",10873,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Freferences\u002Fcross-domain-transfer.md",{"path":184,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":185,"sourceHtmlUrl":186},"references\u002Fecology-story-exemplars.md",8453,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Freferences\u002Fecology-story-exemplars.md",{"path":188,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":189,"sourceHtmlUrl":190},"references\u002Fexemplar-paper-patterns.md",4059,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Freferences\u002Fexemplar-paper-patterns.md",{"path":192,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":193,"sourceHtmlUrl":194},"references\u002Fframework-governance.md",6451,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Freferences\u002Fframework-governance.md",{"path":196,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":197,"sourceHtmlUrl":198},"references\u002Foverclaim-calibration.md",3453,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Freferences\u002Foverclaim-calibration.md",{"path":200,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":201,"sourceHtmlUrl":202},"references\u002Fsource-map.md",12119,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Freferences\u002Fsource-map.md",{"path":204,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":205,"sourceHtmlUrl":206},"references\u002Fstory-learning-strategy.md",4285,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Freferences\u002Fstory-learning-strategy.md",{"path":208,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":209,"sourceHtmlUrl":210},"references\u002Fstory-principles.md",9563,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Freferences\u002Fstory-principles.md",{"path":212,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":213,"sourceHtmlUrl":214},"references\u002Fterminology-style.md",4132,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Freferences\u002Fterminology-style.md",{"path":216,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":217,"sourceHtmlUrl":218},"RELEASE.md",4437,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002FRELEASE.md",{"path":220,"resourceType":221,"resourceTypeDesc":222,"sizeBytes":223,"sourceHtmlUrl":224},"scripts\u002Fvalidate-mature.ps1","SCRIPT","脚本",1422,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fscripts\u002Fvalidate-mature.ps1",{"path":226,"resourceType":221,"resourceTypeDesc":222,"sizeBytes":227,"sourceHtmlUrl":228},"scripts\u002Fvalidate-product.ps1",11022,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Fscripts\u002Fvalidate-product.ps1",{"path":230,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":231,"sourceHtmlUrl":232},"templates\u002Fabstract-rewrite.md",627,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Ftemplates\u002Fabstract-rewrite.md",{"path":234,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":235,"sourceHtmlUrl":236},"templates\u002Ffield-calibration.md",643,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Ftemplates\u002Ffield-calibration.md",{"path":238,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":239,"sourceHtmlUrl":240},"templates\u002Ffigure-order.md",497,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Ftemplates\u002Ffigure-order.md",{"path":242,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":243,"sourceHtmlUrl":244},"templates\u002FREADME.md",596,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Ftemplates\u002FREADME.md",{"path":246,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":247,"sourceHtmlUrl":248},"templates\u002Frebuttal-prep.md",474,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Ftemplates\u002Frebuttal-prep.md",{"path":250,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":251,"sourceHtmlUrl":252},"templates\u002Fstory-diagnosis.md",520,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fpaper-writing\u002Fgood-story-main\u002Ftemplates\u002Fstory-diagnosis.md",[254,289,317,343,368,389],{"skillNo":255,"name":256,"nameZh":6,"description":257,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":258,"sourceHtmlUrl":259,"categories":260,"keywords":269,"publishedAt":45},"01M71G52NMZZKJ7BRCJDNVXECV","thu-digitizer","Extract and validate numeric data from chart images, PDF figures, and official source-data files locally and reproducibly, with calibrated axes, compact-scatter recovery plus residual audits, grouped\u002Fstacked bars, visible-label pie\u002Fdonut validation, original-pixel aligned lattice composites such as UpSet plots, PDF vector inspection, line tracing, histograms, boxplots, error bars, CSV\u002FJSON evidence, source-data cross-validation, and regression evaluation. Use when a user asks to recover or recreate chart data, extract scatter points, bars, printed pie\u002Fdonut labels, or aligned memberships, check a PDF chart, assess digitization accuracy, validate against source data, or improve a chart-digitization workflow from corrected examples.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fvisualization\u002Fthu-digitizer-main\u002FLICENSE","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fvisualization\u002Fthu-digitizer-main\u002FSKILL.md",[261,264],{"categoryNo":262,"categoryName":263,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000002","文档处理",{"categoryNo":265,"categoryName":266,"taxonomyType":267,"taxonomyTypeDesc":268},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000033","数据分析师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,37],"thu digitizer","cross-validation","line","Evaluation","workflow","data","inspection","regression","official","labels","pixel","improve","files","PDF","error","images","vector","chart","compact",{"skillNo":290,"name":291,"nameZh":6,"description":292,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":293,"categories":294,"keywords":301,"publishedAt":45},"01M71G4XJWMJST9K8X244GXH71","scientific-visualization","Meta-skill for publication-ready figures. Use when creating journal submission figures requiring multi-panel layouts, significance annotations, error bars, colorblind-safe palettes, and specific journal formatting (Nature, Science, Cell). Orchestrates matplotlib\u002Fseaborn\u002Fplotly with publication styles. For quick exploration use seaborn or plotly directly.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fvisualization\u002Fscientific-visualization\u002FSKILL.md",[295,298],{"categoryNo":296,"categoryName":297,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000013","分析与可视化",{"categoryNo":299,"categoryName":300,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[302,28,303,304,305,306,307,37,41,308,309,310,311,312,284,313,44,314,315,316],"scientific visualization","visualization","Meta","plotly","safe","journal submission","meta-skill","exploration","quick","nature","ready","panel","Publication","formatting","annotations",{"skillNo":318,"name":319,"nameZh":6,"description":320,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":321,"sourceHtmlUrl":322,"categories":323,"keywords":326,"publishedAt":45},"01M71G3P8C430F3J0XX152ZJ4F","theoretical-economics-claude-skill","Human-in-the-loop theoretical economics research pipeline: from economic intuition to manuscript skeleton in 10 structured stages with quality gates.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Ftheory-skills\u002FpAI-Econ-claude-main\u002FLICENSE","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Ftheory-skills\u002FpAI-Econ-claude-main\u002FSKILL.md",[324,325],{"categoryNo":20,"categoryName":21,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},{"categoryNo":299,"categoryName":300,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},[327,328,329,330,331,30,332,333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341,342],"theoretical economics claude skill","economics","claude skill","human","quality","quality gates","with","gates","true","human-in-the-loop","manuscript","research pipeline","structured","loop","skeleton","pipeline",{"skillNo":344,"name":345,"nameZh":6,"description":346,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":347,"sourceHtmlUrl":348,"categories":349,"keywords":360,"publishedAt":45},"01M71FZF5ZB0384VC60EKQ885N","interview-guide-design","把一个研究题目、研究思路或研究问题，落成一份能用于学术研究、案例研究、学位论文、课题调研的质性访谈提纲时，使用此 skill。触发信号很宽：用户说\"做\u002F设计访谈提纲\"\"访谈大纲怎么设计才规范\"\"结构性访谈提纲\"\"把研究问题\u002F题目变成访谈问题\"\"帮我弄份访谈提纲去问问他们\"\"怎么访谈才能挖到深层的东西\"\"interview guide \u002F interview protocol \u002F key informant \u002F elite interview\"，无论措辞多口语、有没有提方法论，都应触发。典型情形：要去访谈领导 \u002F 干部 \u002F 管理者 \u002F 专家 \u002F 科室主任 \u002F 一线员工或老师 \u002F 关键知情人，了解某个现象、做法或机制；半结构化 \u002F 结构化 \u002F 关键知情人 \u002F 精英访谈皆可；中英双语；社科 \u002F 管理 \u002F 教育 \u002F 公共政策 \u002F 医疗等领域；也常与案例研究、或与一份配套问卷的混合方法调研一起出现。它把研究问题按 Castillo-Montoya 的 IPR 框架与 Yin\u002FStake 的案例研究规范，拆成\"主问题—追问—探测\"，保障与研究问题对齐、可信度（trustworthiness）与三角验证就绪，标注方法论依据与权威出处，产出研究者版 + 现场详版\u002F简版。不要用于：量化问卷 \u002F 量表设计（走 questionnaire-design）、求职面试、以传播或叙事为目的的人物访谈（媒体\u002F播客\u002F记者深度报道\u002F纪录片\u002F口述史，非以回答研究问题为目的）、访谈录音转写、焦点小组\u002F座谈会提纲（群体互动动态与主持伦理不同，本 skill 不覆盖）、以及访谈完成后的编码与主题分析。","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Frunning-surveys-experiments\u002Fmixed-methods-instrument-design-main\u002Freferences\u002Finterview-guide-design\u002FLICENSE","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Frunning-surveys-experiments\u002Fmixed-methods-instrument-design-main\u002Freferences\u002Finterview-guide-design\u002FSKILL.md",[350,353,354,357],{"categoryNo":351,"categoryName":352,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000015","视觉设计",{"categoryNo":20,"categoryName":21,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},{"categoryNo":355,"categoryName":356,"taxonomyType":267,"taxonomyTypeDesc":268},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000032","设计师",{"categoryNo":358,"categoryName":359,"taxonomyType":267,"taxonomyTypeDesc":268},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000038","人力资源",[361,362,363,364,365,366,367],"interview guide design","interview","interview guide","design","guide","questionnaire","protocol",{"skillNo":369,"name":370,"nameZh":6,"description":371,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":372,"sourceHtmlUrl":373,"categories":374,"keywords":379,"publishedAt":45},"01M71FZBQ29K2JPYZD1HWWTZC9","mixed-methods-instrument-design","基于同一项研究的研究目的、研究问题、理论框架与人群设计，协同产出彼此对齐的量化问卷\u002F调查表和质性访谈提纲时使用；也可在用户明确要求时把经审核的问卷创建为问卷星未发布草稿并继续管理。触发信号包括“问卷和访谈一起设计”“根据研究思路同步出调查问卷与访谈提纲”“混合方法研究工具”“不同人群分别做问卷和访谈”“推送到问卷星”“创建在线问卷”“survey + interview guide”“convergent \u002F explanatory sequential \u002F exploratory sequential mixed methods instruments”。适用于社会科学、管理、教育、公共政策、医疗及其他经验研究；允许量化与质性部分使用相同或不同样本。产出研究设计判定、中央映射矩阵、问卷与变量字典、完整访谈三版、联合展示模板和预测试方案；默认用户成品仍是一份完整 Word。不要用于只设计单一访谈提纲（走 interview-guide-design）、只设计单一问卷、把现成工具做成网页、访谈转写、正式数据分析，或在没有研究问题的情况下机械拼接两套题目。","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Frunning-surveys-experiments\u002Fmixed-methods-instrument-design-main\u002FLICENSE","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Frunning-surveys-experiments\u002Fmixed-methods-instrument-design-main\u002FSKILL.md",[375,376,377,378],{"categoryNo":296,"categoryName":297,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},{"categoryNo":351,"categoryName":352,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},{"categoryNo":20,"categoryName":21,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},{"categoryNo":355,"categoryName":356,"taxonomyType":267,"taxonomyTypeDesc":268},[380,381,364,382,383,384,385,362,386,365,387,388,363],"methods","mixed methods instrument design","instrument","testing","数据","Word","survey","data analysis","工具",{"skillNo":390,"name":391,"nameZh":6,"description":392,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":393,"categories":394,"keywords":397,"publishedAt":45},"01M71FYX67NTZH9C05DSD325PD","scientific-critical-thinking","Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffranklee16\u002Facademic-research-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Freview-revise\u002Fscientific-critical-thinking\u002FSKILL.md",[395,396],{"categoryNo":351,"categoryName":352,"taxonomyType":22,"taxonomyTypeDesc":23},{"categoryNo":355,"categoryName":356,"taxonomyType":267,"taxonomyTypeDesc":268},[398,28,399,400,401,402,403,404,405,406,407,408,409,410,411,412,413,414,40,364],"critical","scientific critical thinking","thinking","write","frameworks","for","risk","evidence","grading","edit","read","peer review","claims","review","analysis","teaching","Bash"]