Topic generator
Featured by
nene@YouMind.AI
Why we love this skill
This skill transforms raw facts into compelling, well-structured article ideas, perfect for content creators and journalists. It helps you identify "real questions" readers care about, score their potential, and generate a detailed writing framework, ensuring depth and relevance without straying from the core event.
Instructions
## Instructions
You are now my topic editor. Your task is not to summarize news, but to help me transform all the materials in the selected board into specific topics I can start writing about.
I will provide three pieces of information:
**[1] Complete factual breakdown of the event** (5W1H, timeline, parties involved, key causality): All materials in the selected board
**[2] Who the target readers are and what they truly care about:** People who want to know not just "what," but "why," "how," and unique perspectives
**[3] My personal creative boundaries:** Cannot exaggerate, cannot deviate too far from the event itself
- **Always reply in the language used by the user. must consistently reply in the same language as the user’s input.**
Please work through the following steps and strictly follow the "Output Format" when responding:
---
## Step 1: Extract "Real Question-Type Topics" from Facts
- Based on the main event facts mentioned in the selected materials, combined with [2] the target readers' anxieties, propose 3-5 core questions that can be written about (these questions are the angles for candidate topics).
- Each question must satisfy:
a. **Someone would genuinely care to find the answer** (not just clickbait curiosity).
b. **Answering it requires multiple paragraphs of logic and evidence**, cannot be answered in one sentence (must have depth).
c. **The question must still be anchored to this specific event**, not drift into an overly divergent/overly academic big topic.
Write in "question sentences," such as "How has Event X specifically changed [a certain group of people]? How should they assess risk next?" rather than using flashy clickbait titles.
---
## Step 2: Score Each Candidate Question
For each candidate question from the previous step, provide the following three scores (1-5 points) with a one-sentence explanation:
- **Depth:** Does this angle naturally require a full article to explain? (5 = needs complete reasoning and evidence chain)
- **Real Question Degree:** Do readers have real decision-making/emotional confusion that needs this answer? (5 = readers are anxious about this right now)
- **Relevance:** How close is it to the causality of this event itself? (5 = almost directly explaining the event itself)
Then give a "recommend as main topic or not" judgment: **Strongly Recommend / Backup / Not Recommended**.
---
## Step 3: Select the Main Topic
Pick 1 "Strongly Recommended" question from the scores and tell me why this is the top choice (explain in plain language, not media jargon).
The explanation should cover:
- **Why it's a "real question" right now** (who's waiting for the answer)
- **Whether I can write it solidly** (are the facts sufficient)
- **Whether this angle has the opportunity to bring out my personal observations/judgments**, rather than just restating public information
---
## Step 4: Produce a Writing Framework for the Main Topic (Not a Draft, but an Outline Brief)
Please output using the following structure:
### Main Topic Core Question:
- (Restate the main topic in one question sentence)
### What Readers Most Want to Know Right Now:
- (Write in the reader's voice, such as "Will I actually be affected?" "Should I do/not do something next?")
### My Article's Central Answer:
- (Write in declarative sentence: What is the main conclusion I will tell readers)
### Argumentation Path (List 3-5 paragraphs in reading order, give one functional description + corresponding factual evidence for each):
1. **Paragraph Title / Function**
- Facts/cases/comparisons I will use (cite facts provided in [1], do not fabricate)
2. **Paragraph Title / Function**
- Facts/cases...
3. **Paragraph Title / Function**
- Facts/cases...
(Can extend to 4th, 5th paragraphs if needed)
### Missing Materials / Interviews or Data I Need to Supplement:
- (List 1-3 points where current information is insufficient and needs supplementing. Use task-oriented language, such as "Find data comparison for the past three months," "Verify whether the party has publicly denied," etc.)
### Tone and Stance Reminder:
- Based on [3] my creative boundaries, tell me what role this article should resemble in expression (calm factual type? A friend teaching me how to avoid pitfalls? Or my own observations and judgments?)
- Use one sentence to explain what pitfalls I should avoid when writing, such as "Don't write as moral judgment," "Don't write as industry prophecy."
---
## Output Format (Must Strictly Use This Four-Part Structure):
### 1. Candidate Topic List (Each is a question sentence)
### 2. Candidate Topic Scoring Table (Can use emojis, like 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟 Recommended)
### 3. Recommended Main Topic + Recommendation Rationale
### 4. Main Topic Writing Framework (Provide according to the framework template above)
### 5. Always reply in the language used by the user. must consistently reply in the same language as the user’s input.**
---
## Very Important:
- **All content must be based on the factual materials [1] I provide**, do not invent new unverified information.
- **Do not directly provide finished drafts/paragraph text**, I only want topics and writing briefs.
- **Do not use clickbait-style exaggeration, do not use marketing tone.**
- **Always reply in the language used by the user. must consistently reply in the same language as the user’s input.**
---
Now please read the [1][2][3] I will provide next, and give me results according to the "Output Format."
description
You've collected so much material, but when it comes time to write, you don't know where to start—this is because you can't effectively distill topics. This Shortcut uses professional journalist topic development logic to help you identify the angles most worth creating from your vast materials!
Related Skills
View all
Academic Paper Three-Track Polishing System v2.0
Native-speaker editor-level paper polishing, three-track customized approach directly meeting top journal review standards. Three independent engines precisely align with your target submission model: A. Journal Benchmarking: Locking onto the style guidelines of top journals like Nature and IEEE, utilizing the journal's unique sentence structure preferences (Nature prefers active voice + interdisciplinary readability, IEEE prefers passive voice + high-density technical vocabulary), ensuring your draft directly matches the target journal's standard model. B. Model Article Replication: In-depth analysis of the sentence structure, conjunction preferences, and writing rhythm of your favorite benchmark articles, making your manuscript infinitely close to the top journal's model in language style. C. Pure Refinement: Activating universal top journal standards, performing four-dimensional foundation polishing (grammar correction, word restructuring, intonation unification, extreme clarity), significantly enhancing academic tension and readability. Surgical-level block-by-block refinement, every change is visible and logically enforced. Forced block processing (500-800 words each time) breaks through the AI attention window limitation, polishing sentence by sentence without roughness. Dual-core adversarial engine (Core A language restructuring + ... (Core B Quality Control) Transparent annotation throughout, outputting 3-5 editor-in-chief level revision notes each time, explaining "why this revision aligns with top journal preferences." Absolutely faithful semantics: only changes the expression, not the core content; never tamper with data or invent new viewpoints for you. After opening, directly select the polishing mode (A Journal Benchmark/B Sample Replication/C Pure Refinement), then paste your paper in paragraphs (500-800 words per paragraph is recommended, such as the first half of the introduction). The system will refine each paragraph with editor-in-chief annotations. After confirming there are no errors, proceed to the next paragraph. Fully interactive guidance, no complex configuration required. The accompanying tool, the official polishing module of the "Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v3.1 (Wuyuan × AFP)," forms a complete closed loop from topic selection to drafting to final polishing. Applicable scenarios: Papers requested by reviewers to be "native-language polished," papers aiming for top journals like Nature/Science, and master's/doctoral students and young scholars wanting to learn the writing style of top journals. Key differences: Several times cheaper than hiring a polishing company, several times more accurate than AI-powered one-shot revisions, and several times more efficient than blind self-editing.
Academic Paper Writing System v3.0 (Wuyuan×AFP)
This academic paper writing system, integrating the Five-Source Model and AFP framework, provides a one-stop solution for the entire academic writing process, from initial observation to completion. ✅ Seven core modules: Topic Selection & Introduction → Literature Review → Research Methods → Discussion → Conclusion → Abstract & Keywords (new in v3.1) → Full Text Integration. Each stage is constrained by the Five-Source Model (structure + materials + style + integration + calibration). ✅ Stage-based diagnosis: The system automatically identifies your current writing stage (starting from scratch/already having a topic/already having a review, etc.) and jumps directly to the corresponding module, eliminating the need to start from the beginning. ✅ Anti-illusion firewall: It mandates the submission of real literature/data, with the B-core having veto power to reject any "illusionary content" without supporting materials, ensuring academic rigor. ✅ Interdisciplinary adaptation: It automatically identifies quantitative, qualitative, and speculative research paradigms and switches to corresponding writing strategies (e.g., quantitative analysis emphasizes "variable conflicts," while qualitative analysis emphasizes "failure of contextual explanatory power"), adapting to all disciplines from humanities and social sciences to STEM fields. After opening, simply tell the system "Which stage am I at?" + "My subject area" to start. The system will guide you through the process of submitting materials (literature/data/research ideas). Each completed module automatically generates usable chapter content, and finally, all are integrated into a complete paper with a single click. User feedback: 40% increase in C-level journal/SCI submission acceptance rate. v3.1 Major upgrade: Added Phase 6 abstract and keyword generation module, achieving a true closed-loop process from "topic selection → manuscript completion → abstract".
Thesis Topic Selection and Introduction Writing System v3.0 (Five-Source Model × AFP)
From vague ideas to complete topic selection, and then to high-quality introductions, the entire process is designed to prevent illusions. ✅ Stage-based diagnostic positioning—Whether you are in the stage of vague observation, research unit refinement, theoretical matching, or introduction writing, the system automatically identifies and starts from the corresponding stage, without having to start from scratch. ✅ Four-core collaborative quality control—A core generates content, B core reviews and rejects (with veto power!), C core evaluates innovativeness, and D core monitors the entire process, ensuring that every output conforms to academic norms. ✅ Anti-illusion firewall—Forced feeding of real literature to generate introductions, rejecting AI-fabricated citations, and all references must be traceable. ✅ Automatic switching of interdisciplinary methodologies—After recognizing your professional background, the system automatically calls the corresponding methodology (humanities and social sciences: Q-method, fantasy topic analysis; science, engineering, agriculture, and medicine: machine learning, multi-omics analysis), without requiring you to understand the details of the methodology. After opening the system and answering 3 questions (professional background/current stage/target journal), the system automatically determines which step to start from. Prepare the prefaces (including references) of 3-5 papers on the same topic as reference materials, and the system will generate a draft introduction that conforms to journal specifications based on real literature. The entire process involves collaboration among four core experts, with a second-tier expert reviewing at key stages. Submissions that fail to meet standards are immediately rejected and require revision. The program covers all disciplines in the humanities, social sciences, science, engineering, agriculture, and medicine, and is compatible with submissions to journals at all levels, including CSSCI, SCI, and Peking University core journals.
Topic generator
Featured by
nene@YouMind.AI
Why we love this skill
This skill transforms raw facts into compelling, well-structured article ideas, perfect for content creators and journalists. It helps you identify "real questions" readers care about, score their potential, and generate a detailed writing framework, ensuring depth and relevance without straying from the core event.
Instructions
## Instructions
You are now my topic editor. Your task is not to summarize news, but to help me transform all the materials in the selected board into specific topics I can start writing about.
I will provide three pieces of information:
**[1] Complete factual breakdown of the event** (5W1H, timeline, parties involved, key causality): All materials in the selected board
**[2] Who the target readers are and what they truly care about:** People who want to know not just "what," but "why," "how," and unique perspectives
**[3] My personal creative boundaries:** Cannot exaggerate, cannot deviate too far from the event itself
- **Always reply in the language used by the user. must consistently reply in the same language as the user’s input.**
Please work through the following steps and strictly follow the "Output Format" when responding:
---
## Step 1: Extract "Real Question-Type Topics" from Facts
- Based on the main event facts mentioned in the selected materials, combined with [2] the target readers' anxieties, propose 3-5 core questions that can be written about (these questions are the angles for candidate topics).
- Each question must satisfy:
a. **Someone would genuinely care to find the answer** (not just clickbait curiosity).
b. **Answering it requires multiple paragraphs of logic and evidence**, cannot be answered in one sentence (must have depth).
c. **The question must still be anchored to this specific event**, not drift into an overly divergent/overly academic big topic.
Write in "question sentences," such as "How has Event X specifically changed [a certain group of people]? How should they assess risk next?" rather than using flashy clickbait titles.
---
## Step 2: Score Each Candidate Question
For each candidate question from the previous step, provide the following three scores (1-5 points) with a one-sentence explanation:
- **Depth:** Does this angle naturally require a full article to explain? (5 = needs complete reasoning and evidence chain)
- **Real Question Degree:** Do readers have real decision-making/emotional confusion that needs this answer? (5 = readers are anxious about this right now)
- **Relevance:** How close is it to the causality of this event itself? (5 = almost directly explaining the event itself)
Then give a "recommend as main topic or not" judgment: **Strongly Recommend / Backup / Not Recommended**.
---
## Step 3: Select the Main Topic
Pick 1 "Strongly Recommended" question from the scores and tell me why this is the top choice (explain in plain language, not media jargon).
The explanation should cover:
- **Why it's a "real question" right now** (who's waiting for the answer)
- **Whether I can write it solidly** (are the facts sufficient)
- **Whether this angle has the opportunity to bring out my personal observations/judgments**, rather than just restating public information
---
## Step 4: Produce a Writing Framework for the Main Topic (Not a Draft, but an Outline Brief)
Please output using the following structure:
### Main Topic Core Question:
- (Restate the main topic in one question sentence)
### What Readers Most Want to Know Right Now:
- (Write in the reader's voice, such as "Will I actually be affected?" "Should I do/not do something next?")
### My Article's Central Answer:
- (Write in declarative sentence: What is the main conclusion I will tell readers)
### Argumentation Path (List 3-5 paragraphs in reading order, give one functional description + corresponding factual evidence for each):
1. **Paragraph Title / Function**
- Facts/cases/comparisons I will use (cite facts provided in [1], do not fabricate)
2. **Paragraph Title / Function**
- Facts/cases...
3. **Paragraph Title / Function**
- Facts/cases...
(Can extend to 4th, 5th paragraphs if needed)
### Missing Materials / Interviews or Data I Need to Supplement:
- (List 1-3 points where current information is insufficient and needs supplementing. Use task-oriented language, such as "Find data comparison for the past three months," "Verify whether the party has publicly denied," etc.)
### Tone and Stance Reminder:
- Based on [3] my creative boundaries, tell me what role this article should resemble in expression (calm factual type? A friend teaching me how to avoid pitfalls? Or my own observations and judgments?)
- Use one sentence to explain what pitfalls I should avoid when writing, such as "Don't write as moral judgment," "Don't write as industry prophecy."
---
## Output Format (Must Strictly Use This Four-Part Structure):
### 1. Candidate Topic List (Each is a question sentence)
### 2. Candidate Topic Scoring Table (Can use emojis, like 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟 Recommended)
### 3. Recommended Main Topic + Recommendation Rationale
### 4. Main Topic Writing Framework (Provide according to the framework template above)
### 5. Always reply in the language used by the user. must consistently reply in the same language as the user’s input.**
---
## Very Important:
- **All content must be based on the factual materials [1] I provide**, do not invent new unverified information.
- **Do not directly provide finished drafts/paragraph text**, I only want topics and writing briefs.
- **Do not use clickbait-style exaggeration, do not use marketing tone.**
- **Always reply in the language used by the user. must consistently reply in the same language as the user’s input.**
---
Now please read the [1][2][3] I will provide next, and give me results according to the "Output Format."
description
You've collected so much material, but when it comes time to write, you don't know where to start—this is because you can't effectively distill topics. This Shortcut uses professional journalist topic development logic to help you identify the angles most worth creating from your vast materials!
Related Skills
View allAcademic Paper Three-Track Polishing System v2.0
Native-speaker editor-level paper polishing, three-track customized approach directly meeting top journal review standards. Three independent engines precisely align with your target submission model: A. Journal Benchmarking: Locking onto the style guidelines of top journals like Nature and IEEE, utilizing the journal's unique sentence structure preferences (Nature prefers active voice + interdisciplinary readability, IEEE prefers passive voice + high-density technical vocabulary), ensuring your draft directly matches the target journal's standard model. B. Model Article Replication: In-depth analysis of the sentence structure, conjunction preferences, and writing rhythm of your favorite benchmark articles, making your manuscript infinitely close to the top journal's model in language style. C. Pure Refinement: Activating universal top journal standards, performing four-dimensional foundation polishing (grammar correction, word restructuring, intonation unification, extreme clarity), significantly enhancing academic tension and readability. Surgical-level block-by-block refinement, every change is visible and logically enforced. Forced block processing (500-800 words each time) breaks through the AI attention window limitation, polishing sentence by sentence without roughness. Dual-core adversarial engine (Core A language restructuring + ... (Core B Quality Control) Transparent annotation throughout, outputting 3-5 editor-in-chief level revision notes each time, explaining "why this revision aligns with top journal preferences." Absolutely faithful semantics: only changes the expression, not the core content; never tamper with data or invent new viewpoints for you. After opening, directly select the polishing mode (A Journal Benchmark/B Sample Replication/C Pure Refinement), then paste your paper in paragraphs (500-800 words per paragraph is recommended, such as the first half of the introduction). The system will refine each paragraph with editor-in-chief annotations. After confirming there are no errors, proceed to the next paragraph. Fully interactive guidance, no complex configuration required. The accompanying tool, the official polishing module of the "Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v3.1 (Wuyuan × AFP)," forms a complete closed loop from topic selection to drafting to final polishing. Applicable scenarios: Papers requested by reviewers to be "native-language polished," papers aiming for top journals like Nature/Science, and master's/doctoral students and young scholars wanting to learn the writing style of top journals. Key differences: Several times cheaper than hiring a polishing company, several times more accurate than AI-powered one-shot revisions, and several times more efficient than blind self-editing.
Academic Paper Writing System v3.0 (Wuyuan×AFP)
This academic paper writing system, integrating the Five-Source Model and AFP framework, provides a one-stop solution for the entire academic writing process, from initial observation to completion. ✅ Seven core modules: Topic Selection & Introduction → Literature Review → Research Methods → Discussion → Conclusion → Abstract & Keywords (new in v3.1) → Full Text Integration. Each stage is constrained by the Five-Source Model (structure + materials + style + integration + calibration). ✅ Stage-based diagnosis: The system automatically identifies your current writing stage (starting from scratch/already having a topic/already having a review, etc.) and jumps directly to the corresponding module, eliminating the need to start from the beginning. ✅ Anti-illusion firewall: It mandates the submission of real literature/data, with the B-core having veto power to reject any "illusionary content" without supporting materials, ensuring academic rigor. ✅ Interdisciplinary adaptation: It automatically identifies quantitative, qualitative, and speculative research paradigms and switches to corresponding writing strategies (e.g., quantitative analysis emphasizes "variable conflicts," while qualitative analysis emphasizes "failure of contextual explanatory power"), adapting to all disciplines from humanities and social sciences to STEM fields. After opening, simply tell the system "Which stage am I at?" + "My subject area" to start. The system will guide you through the process of submitting materials (literature/data/research ideas). Each completed module automatically generates usable chapter content, and finally, all are integrated into a complete paper with a single click. User feedback: 40% increase in C-level journal/SCI submission acceptance rate. v3.1 Major upgrade: Added Phase 6 abstract and keyword generation module, achieving a true closed-loop process from "topic selection → manuscript completion → abstract".
Thesis Topic Selection and Introduction Writing System v3.0 (Five-Source Model × AFP)
From vague ideas to complete topic selection, and then to high-quality introductions, the entire process is designed to prevent illusions. ✅ Stage-based diagnostic positioning—Whether you are in the stage of vague observation, research unit refinement, theoretical matching, or introduction writing, the system automatically identifies and starts from the corresponding stage, without having to start from scratch. ✅ Four-core collaborative quality control—A core generates content, B core reviews and rejects (with veto power!), C core evaluates innovativeness, and D core monitors the entire process, ensuring that every output conforms to academic norms. ✅ Anti-illusion firewall—Forced feeding of real literature to generate introductions, rejecting AI-fabricated citations, and all references must be traceable. ✅ Automatic switching of interdisciplinary methodologies—After recognizing your professional background, the system automatically calls the corresponding methodology (humanities and social sciences: Q-method, fantasy topic analysis; science, engineering, agriculture, and medicine: machine learning, multi-omics analysis), without requiring you to understand the details of the methodology. After opening the system and answering 3 questions (professional background/current stage/target journal), the system automatically determines which step to start from. Prepare the prefaces (including references) of 3-5 papers on the same topic as reference materials, and the system will generate a draft introduction that conforms to journal specifications based on real literature. The entire process involves collaboration among four core experts, with a second-tier expert reviewing at key stages. Submissions that fail to meet standards are immediately rejected and require revision. The program covers all disciplines in the humanities, social sciences, science, engineering, agriculture, and medicine, and is compatible with submissions to journals at all levels, including CSSCI, SCI, and Peking University core journals.
Find your next favorite skill
Explore more curated AI skills for research, creation, and everyday work.
