AgentSkillsCN

redundancy-pruner

在保留引用与原意的前提下，去除各章节中重复出现的套话（如方法论免责声明、通用过渡语、反复出现的总结段落）。 **触发条件**：冗余、重复、去除套话、去重复、去套话、合并重复段落。 **适用场景**：当草稿因相同段落形式与免责声明在多个小节中反复出现而显得生硬时，可使用此技能。 **若跳过**：如果您仍在起草那些尚未完成的主要章节（请先完成初稿）。 **网络环境**：无需联网。 **行为准则**：不要增删引用键；不要跨小节移动引用；也不要删除小节专属的内容。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: redundancy-pruner
description: |
  Remove repeated boilerplate across sections (methodology disclaimers, generic transitions, repeated summaries) while preserving citations and meaning.
  **Trigger**: redundancy, repetition, boilerplate removal, 去重复, 去套话, 合并重复段落.
  **Use when**: the draft feels rigid because the same paragraph shape and disclaimer repeats across many subsections.
  **Skip if**: you are still drafting major missing sections (finish drafting first).
  **Network**: none.
  **Guardrail**: do not add/remove citation keys; do not move citations across subsections; do not delete subsection-specific content.

Redundancy Pruner

Purpose: make the survey feel intentional by removing “looped template paragraphs” and consolidating global disclaimers, while keeping meaning and citations stable.

Role cards (use explicitly)

Compressor

Mission: remove repeated boilerplate without deleting subsection-specific work.

Do:

  • •Collapse repeated disclaimers into one front-matter paragraph (not per-H3 repeats).
  • •Delete repeated narration stems and empty glue sentences.
  • •Keep each H3’s unique contrasts/evaluation anchors/limitations intact.

Avoid:

  • •Cutting unique comparisons because they sound similar.
  • •Turning pruning into a rewrite (this skill is subtraction-first).

Narrative Keeper

Mission: keep the argument chain readable after pruning.

Do:

  • •Replace slide-like navigation with short argument bridges (NO new facts/citations).
  • •Ensure each H3 still has a thesis, contrasts, and at least one limitation.

Avoid:

  • •Generic transitions that could fit any subsection ("Moreover", "Next") without concrete nouns.

Role prompt: Boilerplate Pruner (editor)

text
You are pruning redundancy from a survey draft.

Your job is to remove repeated boilerplate and make transitions content-bearing, without changing meaning or citations.

Constraints:
- do not add/remove citation keys
- do not move citations across ### subsections
- do not delete subsection-specific comparisons, evaluation anchors, or limitations

Style:
- delete narration and generic glue
- keep one evidence-policy paragraph in front matter; avoid repeated disclaimers

Inputs

  • •output/DRAFT.md
  • •Optional (helps avoid accidental drift):
    • •outline/outline.yml (subsection boundaries)
    • •output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl (if you are enforcing anchoring)

Outputs

  • •output/DRAFT.md (in-place edits)

Workflow

Use the role cards above.

Steps:

  1. •Identify repeated boilerplate (not content):
  • •repeated disclaimer paragraphs (evidence-policy, methodology caveats)
  • •repeated opener labels (e.g., Key takeaway: spam)
  • •repeated slide-like narration stems (e.g., “In the next section…”) and generic transitions
  1. •Pick a single home for global disclaimers:
  • •keep the evidence-policy paragraph once in front matter (Introduction or Related Work)
  • •delete duplicates inside H3 subsections
  1. •Rewrite transitions into argument bridges:
  • •keep bridges subsection-specific (use concrete nouns from that subsection)
  • •do not add facts or citations
  1. •Sanity check subsection integrity:
  • •each H3 still has its unique thesis + contrasts + limitation
  • •no citation-only lines and no trailing citation-dump paragraphs
  • •if outline/outline.yml exists, use it to confirm you did not prune across subsection boundaries
  • •if output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl exists, treat it as a regression anchor (no cross-subsection citation drift)

Guardrails (do not violate)

  • •Do not add/remove citation keys.
  • •Do not move citations across ### subsections.
  • •Do not delete subsection-specific comparisons, evaluation anchors, or limitations.

Mini examples (rewrite intentions; do not add facts)

Repeated disclaimer -> keep once:

  • •Bad (repeated across many H3s): Claims remain provisional under abstract-only evidence.
  • •Better (once in front matter): state evidence policy as survey methodology, then delete duplicates in H3.

Slide navigation -> argument bridge:

  • •Bad: Next, we move from planning to memory.
  • •Better: Planning determines how decisions are formed, while memory determines what evidence those decisions can condition on under a fixed protocol.

Template synthesis stem -> content-first sentence:

  • •Bad: Taken together, these approaches... (repeated many times)
  • •Better: state the specific pattern directly (e.g., Across reported protocols, X trades off Y against Z...).

Troubleshooting

Issue: pruning removes subsection-specific content

Fix:

  • •Restrict edits to obviously repeated boilerplate; keep anything that encodes a unique comparison/limitation for that subsection.

Issue: pruning changes citation placement

Fix:

  • •Undo; citations must remain in the same subsection and keys must not change.