---
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.
```