Sync ParaSkill check-section-logic-consistency

LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 bhxdianzhang
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+license: mit
+language:
+- zh
+- en
+tags:
+- codex-skill
+- ai-agent
+- scientific-writing
+- research-workflow
+- paraskill
+- paradoxgpt
+- checker
+pretty_name: CheckSectionLogicConsistency
+---
+
+# CheckSectionLogicConsistency
+
+`check-section-logic-consistency` is a ParaSkill research workflow skill for the `checker` family.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Check whether abstract, introduction, method, experiments, and conclusion use consistent terminology, claims, assumptions, and closure structure. Use when a paper feels internally inconsistent, has claim drift, or different sections appear to promise different contributions. Output is a consistency report and repair plan.
+
+## Metadata
+
+- Family: `checker`
+- Owner model: `ParadoxGPT-Checker-4B`
+- Output type: `diagnosis`
+- Version: `0.1`
+- Default language: `zh`
+
+## Included Files
+
+```text
+CheckSectionLogicConsistency/
+  SKILL.md
+  agents/openai.yaml
+  README.md
+  LICENSE
+```
+
+`SKILL.md` is the executable skill instruction. `README.md` is the Hugging Face card.
+
+## Installation
+
+Copy this folder into a Codex-discoverable skills directory, or reference `SKILL.md` directly from an agent workflow.
+
+```bash
+mkdir -p ~/.codex/skills
+cp -r CheckSectionLogicConsistency ~/.codex/skills/check-section-logic-consistency
+```
+
+## Source
+
+This skill is part of the ParaSkill library for ParadoxGPT. The full routing table is maintained in `SKILL_INDEX.json` in the source bundle.

SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+---
+name: check-section-logic-consistency
+description: >-
+  Check whether abstract, introduction, method, experiments, and conclusion use
+  consistent terminology, claims, assumptions, and closure structure. Use when a
+  paper feels internally inconsistent, has claim drift, or different sections
+  appear to promise different contributions. Output is a consistency report and
+  repair plan.
+metadata:
+  owner_model: ParadoxGPT-Checker-4B
+  skill_family: checker
+  version: "0.1"
+  output_type: diagnosis
+  default_language: zh
+  trigger_keywords: [logic consistency, section consistency, claim drift, terminology, contradiction, 前后一致, 逻辑]
+  required_inputs: [paper_sections]
+  optional_inputs: [claim_list, terminology_list, reviewer_concerns]
+  handoff_to: [check-claim-evidence-alignment, build-intro-argument-chain, rewrite-abstract-with-commitments]
+---
+
+# Check Section Logic Consistency
+
+## Purpose
+
+检查论文各章节是否讲的是同一个故事：abstract 的承诺、intro 的 gap、method 的设计、experiment 的证据、conclusion 的总结是否一致。这个 skill 关注跨章节漂移，而不是单点 claim 证据。
+
+## When to Use
+
+- 读起来感觉 abstract、intro、method、experiment 各讲各的。
+- 术语在不同章节含义变化。
+- 贡献从 intro 到 conclusion 被放大或换了目标。
+
+## Do Not Use
+
+- 只检查 claim 是否有证据 → 用 `check-claim-evidence-alignment`。
+- 需要重建 introduction 论证链 → 用 `build-intro-argument-chain`。
+- 只改 abstract → 用 `rewrite-abstract-with-commitments`。
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+- `paper_sections`: abstract、introduction、method、experiment、conclusion 的文本或摘要。
+- `claim_list`: optional，已抽取 claims。
+- `terminology_list`: optional，关键术语清单。
+
+## Output Contract
+
+输出必须至少包含：
+
+1. **terminology_inconsistencies** - 术语漂移或定义不一致。
+2. **claim_drift** - claim 在章节之间变大、变小或换目标。
+3. **missing_closure** - 某章节提出但后文没闭合的承诺。
+4. **contradictions** - 明确矛盾或隐含冲突。
+5. **repair_plan** - 按优先级修复。
+
+## Procedure
+
+1. 抽取每个章节的主 claim 和关键术语。
+2. 对齐同一术语在不同章节的定义和作用。
+3. 检查 intro 的 gap 是否真的由 method 回应。
+4. 检查 experiments 是否测试 abstract/conclusion 的核心承诺。
+5. 输出 repair_plan，优先修会误导 reviewer 的 drift。
+
+## Quality Bar
+
+一个好的输出必须：
+
+- 指出具体章节间的不一致，而不是泛泛说逻辑不顺。
+- 区分 terminology drift、claim drift 和 missing closure。
+- repair_plan 能说明改哪一节最划算。
+- 不把合理的逐步细化误判为矛盾。
+
+一个差的输出：
+
+- 只做全文摘要。
+- 把所有表达差异都当 inconsistency。
+- 不指出修复位置。
+
+## Failure Modes
+
+- **过度严格**：术语自然细化不等于漂移。
+- **漏掉 conclusion 扩张**：结论常把 claim 写大。
+- **忽视方法目标**：method 优化的目标和 intro 诉求不一致。
+- **只看字面**：同义改写不一定不一致，要看 claim 范围。
+
+## Handoff
+
+- 如果漂移本质是证据不支撑 claim → `check-claim-evidence-alignment`
+- 如果 intro 链条需要重建 → `build-intro-argument-chain`
+- 如果 abstract 承诺与正文不一致 → `rewrite-abstract-with-commitments`
+
+## Example
+
+Input:
+
+```
+paper_sections:
+  abstract: claims scalable interaction for long-horizon reasoning
+  introduction: motivates memory failures
+  method: introduces interaction budget scheduler
+  experiments: tests task success, not memory consistency
+  conclusion: claims general agent memory improvement
+```
+
+Output:
+
+```
+terminology_inconsistencies:
+  - “memory” in intro means persistent state, but method only changes interaction scheduling.
+
+claim_drift:
+  - abstract: interaction scaling.
+  - conclusion: agent memory improvement. This shifts the contribution target.
+
+missing_closure:
+  - intro's memory failure motivation is not tested by experiments.
+
+contradictions:
+  - no direct contradiction, but contribution framing drifts.
+
+repair_plan:
+  1. Reframe intro around interaction budget, not memory.
+  2. If keeping memory framing, add memory consistency diagnostic.
+  3. Rewrite conclusion to match tested interaction claim.
+```

agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Check Section Logic Consistency"
+  short_description: "Check whether abstract, introduction, method, experiments, and conclusion use consistent t"
+  default_prompt: "Use $check-section-logic-consistency for this research-writing task."