Paper Structure & Scope Audit
4-step IMRaDC + AFP structure audit
Description
Break down the paper using a four-step IMRaDC AFP process: annotate → define each section’s role → check for overreach, gaps, and fit → summarize recommendations. Confirm a gate at each step, track progress at 25/50/75/100%, and produce an actionable checklist for structural revisions. Includes three IMRaDC mappings—quantitative, qualitative, and conceptual—along with standards for identifying gaps and setting priorities, integrating AFP and the underlying logic of IMRaDC.
Related Skills
View all
ResearchAcademic Paper Writing v4.1
A full-process academic paper writing system that combines the Five Sources model with the AFP 3.1 three-layer architecture. Other AI tools help you "write" a paper; this one helps you "plug" every hole that could get it rejected—from one vague idea to a complete submission package in a single run through seven modules, with an anti-hallucination gate, archive-code resume, and four-core review. [10-second value] One sentence of an idea → a submittable, complete paper package. Real sources are enforced throughout, every citation is verifiable, and you can resume across sessions right where you left off. [Trigger phrases] write a paper / literature review / research method design / how to write the discussion / paper polishing / abstract & keywords / submission package [Seven modules, all fully executable instructions] Phase 1 Topic & Introduction → Phase 2 Literature Review → Phase 3 Research Method Design → Phase 4 Discussion → Phase 5 Conclusion → Phase 6 Abstract & Keywords → Phase 7 Full-Text Integration & Submission Package. Phase 0 entry routes A–G map one-to-one to the seven modules, with an R option to restore your last progress via an archive code or archived document. [v4.1 upgrades] 1. Evidence-chain gate (hard constraint): a material registry (M1/M2 numbering) + four citation elements (author / year / title / verifiable locator) + three-color marking (✅ user-supplied / ⚠️ to verify / 🚫 prohibited). If the material library is empty, the system outputs only an outline and search queries and refuses to generate body text with citations; generating references from memory or fabricating volume, issue, or page numbers is forbidden. 2. Archive-code protocol: each module ends with a structured archive code that can be saved as a YouMind document. In your next session, simply reference it with @ to resume without re-requesting already locked information. 3. Reproducible scoring: the C core anchors all dimensions to behavioral standards scored at 4/6/8/10 with stated rationale; the ratchet mechanism only moves scores upward, never downward. 4. Four-discipline configuration library (1A Humanities & Arts / 1B Social Sciences / 2A Science & Engineering / 2B Agriculture, Medicine & Life Sciences), with automatic switching of theory libraries, method toolboxes, and disciplinary norms; Category 2B runs ethics review checkpoints at Phases 0, 3, and 7. 5. Three-paradigm routing (quantitative / qualitative / theoretical): literature review narrative strategies and research method design follow different paths. 6. Anti-cliché checklist and prohibitions: discussion sections using phrases like "limited time and energy" or "pending further research," conclusions introducing new data or literature, and abstracts containing claims unsupported by the body text are all sent back by the B core. 7. Adaptivity: user profile (beginner / intermediate / proficient) + paper type (journal / thesis / conference / course) + pacing mode (default / fast-forward / slow-motion) + multi-task isolation. 8. Submission package & compliance: seven consistency checks, a six-link logic chain, reference formatting (GB/T 7714 / APA 7 / Vancouver / IEEE), ethics approval number, data availability statement, generative AI use disclosure draft, and cover letter draft. [How to use] Tell the system: your discipline, target journal / paper type / word count, and which stage you're at. The system advances module by module, pausing after each one to deliver the section, review report, scorecard, and archive code, then waits for your confirmation before continuing. [Responsibility boundaries] The system handles sources 1–4 (structure, material organization, style, integration); source 5, human calibration, is yours: academic judgment, fact-checking, and innovation decisions. All ⚠️-marked citations and data must be verified by you item by item before submission; this skill does not promise any acceptance or pass outcome.
WriteJournal Paper Writing Engine
Input your research direction in one sentence, and the AFP step-by-step engine guides you through the entire process. P1 Topic Design — Davis Interesting Theory + Problematization’s Five-Level Topic Selection Method, extracting real problems from phenomena. P2 Introduction Writing — Five-Color Template Analysis Method, breaking down top journal model papers section by section: emotional appeal → knowledge gap → literature positioning → research space → value declaration, with embedded full deconstruction prompts. P3 Literature Review — Structured organization, distinguishing research threads and dialogue objects. P4 Theoretical Framework — Six theory integration templates embedded throughout (complementary, contrast, bridging, hierarchical, evolutionary, general), each containing six paragraphs: introduction → justification → sorting → premise → analysis → conclusion; plus a five-level deep-drill sentence skeleton for single-theory depth. P5 Research Methods — Automatically adapts strategies based on four paths: empirical quantitative, qualitative, speculative, and mixed. P6 Body Writing — 9-3-1 pyramid structure. P7 Conclusion Writing — Three-level conclusion processing (findings → dialogue → extension). P8 Submission Preparation — Eight methods to reduce AI detection rate. P9 Global Assembly — Compiles independent documents from each stage into a complete draft, supports cross-chapter bidirectional backfill, and allows interruption and iterative backtracking at any time. 🎯 Suitable for: Graduate students (master's and PhD) and early-career researchers aiming to submit to Chinese C-journals, core journals, or SSCI, especially those stuck on theoretical framework and introduction writing. ⚙️ Underlying Architecture: Five-Source Model × AFP Step-by-Step Human-Machine Relay Protocol, with heartbeat signals, mandatory stop points, and dual-core auditing.
ResearchThesis Topic & Intro v3.2
Read in 10 seconds: turn a vague observation into a defensible topic, then into an introduction that can pass review. Throughout, it uses only the real materials you provide — no fabricated references. Trigger words: thesis topic, topic selection, introduction, research gap, academic writing, thesis proposal, topic selection before literature review. Applies to: journal papers / dissertations / conference papers / course papers, across all disciplines — humanities and social sciences, STEM, agriculture, medicine, and life sciences. Up and running in 3 minutes: lock in your discipline and starting point → shape the topic layer by layer → strict evidence-chain gate → module-by-module introduction → ratchet finalization. [Division of labor with other skills] The health check comes first, writing comes after, and polishing comes last. This skill handles the middle stretch: topic shaping + introduction draft. It does not write the full paper (that's the Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v4.x), and it does not polish language sentence by sentence (that's the Academic Paper Three-Track Polishing System v8.x). [Six gates] 1. Discipline placement: classify into one of four categories — 1A humanities/arts, 1B social sciences, 2A STEM, 2B agriculture/medicine/life sciences — and load the corresponding red-line norms; for category 2B, ethics review status is always checked. 2. Stage positioning: are you at a vague observation, have a unit but no angle, have an object but no theory, lack a method, lack a viewpoint, or only lack an introduction? Start from the corresponding gate instead of starting over from scratch. 3. Topic shaping: research unit → dimension compass → theoretical perspective → research method → research viewpoint, locked layer by layer; before locking each layer, first judge whether the previous layer holds. 4. Strict evidence-chain gate: before the introduction, your references are registered into an M1/M2… material library, each entry verified on four elements — author/year/title/locator; if fewer than 3 references are registered in the conversation, the system refuses to generate the research-gap statement — not a downgrade, a refusal. 5. Module-by-module generation: the introduction is produced in five inverted-pyramid modules, and each module must be annotated with citation numbers [Mn]; no source, no sentence. 6. Ratchet finalization: only versions that have passed receive credit; qualifying modules are locked and no longer changed; scores only go up, never down. [Deliverables] A '[Topic Keyword] · Topic & Introduction' document + a sentence-level traceable citation mapping table + a ⚠️ to-verify checklist + an AFP archive code. The archive code works across four systems — the proposal health-checker, the v4.x full-process system, and the three-track polishing system — so switching skills doesn't require re-stating your discipline, topic, journal, or material library. [Explicitly not done] It does not fabricate authors, years, volumes, issues, page numbers, or DOIs; any bibliographic records retrieved online are marked ⚠️ to-verify and can only be written into the reference list after you verify them; it makes no promises of acceptance or passing review. Authorship and responsibility are yours — please verify every citation and data point.
Paper Structure & Scope Audit
4-step IMRaDC + AFP structure audit
Description
Break down the paper using a four-step IMRaDC AFP process: annotate → define each section’s role → check for overreach, gaps, and fit → summarize recommendations. Confirm a gate at each step, track progress at 25/50/75/100%, and produce an actionable checklist for structural revisions. Includes three IMRaDC mappings—quantitative, qualitative, and conceptual—along with standards for identifying gaps and setting priorities, integrating AFP and the underlying logic of IMRaDC.
Related Skills
View allResearchAcademic Paper Writing v4.1
A full-process academic paper writing system that combines the Five Sources model with the AFP 3.1 three-layer architecture. Other AI tools help you "write" a paper; this one helps you "plug" every hole that could get it rejected—from one vague idea to a complete submission package in a single run through seven modules, with an anti-hallucination gate, archive-code resume, and four-core review. [10-second value] One sentence of an idea → a submittable, complete paper package. Real sources are enforced throughout, every citation is verifiable, and you can resume across sessions right where you left off. [Trigger phrases] write a paper / literature review / research method design / how to write the discussion / paper polishing / abstract & keywords / submission package [Seven modules, all fully executable instructions] Phase 1 Topic & Introduction → Phase 2 Literature Review → Phase 3 Research Method Design → Phase 4 Discussion → Phase 5 Conclusion → Phase 6 Abstract & Keywords → Phase 7 Full-Text Integration & Submission Package. Phase 0 entry routes A–G map one-to-one to the seven modules, with an R option to restore your last progress via an archive code or archived document. [v4.1 upgrades] 1. Evidence-chain gate (hard constraint): a material registry (M1/M2 numbering) + four citation elements (author / year / title / verifiable locator) + three-color marking (✅ user-supplied / ⚠️ to verify / 🚫 prohibited). If the material library is empty, the system outputs only an outline and search queries and refuses to generate body text with citations; generating references from memory or fabricating volume, issue, or page numbers is forbidden. 2. Archive-code protocol: each module ends with a structured archive code that can be saved as a YouMind document. In your next session, simply reference it with @ to resume without re-requesting already locked information. 3. Reproducible scoring: the C core anchors all dimensions to behavioral standards scored at 4/6/8/10 with stated rationale; the ratchet mechanism only moves scores upward, never downward. 4. Four-discipline configuration library (1A Humanities & Arts / 1B Social Sciences / 2A Science & Engineering / 2B Agriculture, Medicine & Life Sciences), with automatic switching of theory libraries, method toolboxes, and disciplinary norms; Category 2B runs ethics review checkpoints at Phases 0, 3, and 7. 5. Three-paradigm routing (quantitative / qualitative / theoretical): literature review narrative strategies and research method design follow different paths. 6. Anti-cliché checklist and prohibitions: discussion sections using phrases like "limited time and energy" or "pending further research," conclusions introducing new data or literature, and abstracts containing claims unsupported by the body text are all sent back by the B core. 7. Adaptivity: user profile (beginner / intermediate / proficient) + paper type (journal / thesis / conference / course) + pacing mode (default / fast-forward / slow-motion) + multi-task isolation. 8. Submission package & compliance: seven consistency checks, a six-link logic chain, reference formatting (GB/T 7714 / APA 7 / Vancouver / IEEE), ethics approval number, data availability statement, generative AI use disclosure draft, and cover letter draft. [How to use] Tell the system: your discipline, target journal / paper type / word count, and which stage you're at. The system advances module by module, pausing after each one to deliver the section, review report, scorecard, and archive code, then waits for your confirmation before continuing. [Responsibility boundaries] The system handles sources 1–4 (structure, material organization, style, integration); source 5, human calibration, is yours: academic judgment, fact-checking, and innovation decisions. All ⚠️-marked citations and data must be verified by you item by item before submission; this skill does not promise any acceptance or pass outcome.
WriteJournal Paper Writing Engine
Input your research direction in one sentence, and the AFP step-by-step engine guides you through the entire process. P1 Topic Design — Davis Interesting Theory + Problematization’s Five-Level Topic Selection Method, extracting real problems from phenomena. P2 Introduction Writing — Five-Color Template Analysis Method, breaking down top journal model papers section by section: emotional appeal → knowledge gap → literature positioning → research space → value declaration, with embedded full deconstruction prompts. P3 Literature Review — Structured organization, distinguishing research threads and dialogue objects. P4 Theoretical Framework — Six theory integration templates embedded throughout (complementary, contrast, bridging, hierarchical, evolutionary, general), each containing six paragraphs: introduction → justification → sorting → premise → analysis → conclusion; plus a five-level deep-drill sentence skeleton for single-theory depth. P5 Research Methods — Automatically adapts strategies based on four paths: empirical quantitative, qualitative, speculative, and mixed. P6 Body Writing — 9-3-1 pyramid structure. P7 Conclusion Writing — Three-level conclusion processing (findings → dialogue → extension). P8 Submission Preparation — Eight methods to reduce AI detection rate. P9 Global Assembly — Compiles independent documents from each stage into a complete draft, supports cross-chapter bidirectional backfill, and allows interruption and iterative backtracking at any time. 🎯 Suitable for: Graduate students (master's and PhD) and early-career researchers aiming to submit to Chinese C-journals, core journals, or SSCI, especially those stuck on theoretical framework and introduction writing. ⚙️ Underlying Architecture: Five-Source Model × AFP Step-by-Step Human-Machine Relay Protocol, with heartbeat signals, mandatory stop points, and dual-core auditing.
ResearchThesis Topic & Intro v3.2
Read in 10 seconds: turn a vague observation into a defensible topic, then into an introduction that can pass review. Throughout, it uses only the real materials you provide — no fabricated references. Trigger words: thesis topic, topic selection, introduction, research gap, academic writing, thesis proposal, topic selection before literature review. Applies to: journal papers / dissertations / conference papers / course papers, across all disciplines — humanities and social sciences, STEM, agriculture, medicine, and life sciences. Up and running in 3 minutes: lock in your discipline and starting point → shape the topic layer by layer → strict evidence-chain gate → module-by-module introduction → ratchet finalization. [Division of labor with other skills] The health check comes first, writing comes after, and polishing comes last. This skill handles the middle stretch: topic shaping + introduction draft. It does not write the full paper (that's the Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v4.x), and it does not polish language sentence by sentence (that's the Academic Paper Three-Track Polishing System v8.x). [Six gates] 1. Discipline placement: classify into one of four categories — 1A humanities/arts, 1B social sciences, 2A STEM, 2B agriculture/medicine/life sciences — and load the corresponding red-line norms; for category 2B, ethics review status is always checked. 2. Stage positioning: are you at a vague observation, have a unit but no angle, have an object but no theory, lack a method, lack a viewpoint, or only lack an introduction? Start from the corresponding gate instead of starting over from scratch. 3. Topic shaping: research unit → dimension compass → theoretical perspective → research method → research viewpoint, locked layer by layer; before locking each layer, first judge whether the previous layer holds. 4. Strict evidence-chain gate: before the introduction, your references are registered into an M1/M2… material library, each entry verified on four elements — author/year/title/locator; if fewer than 3 references are registered in the conversation, the system refuses to generate the research-gap statement — not a downgrade, a refusal. 5. Module-by-module generation: the introduction is produced in five inverted-pyramid modules, and each module must be annotated with citation numbers [Mn]; no source, no sentence. 6. Ratchet finalization: only versions that have passed receive credit; qualifying modules are locked and no longer changed; scores only go up, never down. [Deliverables] A '[Topic Keyword] · Topic & Introduction' document + a sentence-level traceable citation mapping table + a ⚠️ to-verify checklist + an AFP archive code. The archive code works across four systems — the proposal health-checker, the v4.x full-process system, and the three-track polishing system — so switching skills doesn't require re-stating your discipline, topic, journal, or material library. [Explicitly not done] It does not fabricate authors, years, volumes, issues, page numbers, or DOIs; any bibliographic records retrieved online are marked ⚠️ to-verify and can only be written into the reference list after you verify them; it makes no promises of acceptance or passing review. Authorship and responsibility are yours — please verify every citation and data point.
Find your next favorite skill
Explore more curated AI skills for research, creation, and everyday work.