What is paper-logical-consistency?

Instructions for checking that a research paper's main claims, assumptions, methods, and conclusions remain logically consistent after edits.

Use it when revising a research question, hypothesis, causal claim, method boundary, conclusion, or the paper's criticism of prior work.

Changing one central argument can leave contradictory explanations elsewhere in the paper.

paper-logical-consistency — Skill by Lambenthan

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Any agent

npx skills add Lambenthan/paper-discipline-skills --skill paper-logical-consistency

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Lambenthan/paper-discipline-skills

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

README.md

[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lambenthan/paper-discipline-skills/paper-logical-consistency/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/lambenthan/paper-discipline-skills/paper-logical-consistency)

Your own site

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lambenthan/paper-discipline-skills/paper-logical-consistency"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lambenthan/paper-discipline-skills/paper-logical-consistency/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

Your own site · 80×15

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lambenthan/paper-discipline-skills/paper-logical-consistency"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lambenthan/paper-discipline-skills/paper-logical-consistency.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>

Per session 155 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.

When invoked 1,857 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.

Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.

Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.

Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

Model	Per session	Once invoked
Fable 5.1	$0.00155	$0.01857
Opus 5.5	$0.00062	$0.00743
Sonnet 5.5	$0.00031	$0.00371
Haiku 4.5	$0.00015	$0.00186

Measured 2mo ago against content hash 717af25ff80a, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

paper-logical-consistency scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

paper-logical-consistency/SKILL.md · 161 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 161 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

paper-logical-consistency：论证一致性

核心理念

论文不是字符的拼接，是论证链的组合。改一处核心论点，前后章节里同概念的出现都要回查——但人累了、赶时间最容易跳过，AI 改完也不会自己想起。

改一个观点，不是改一段话；改一段话，可能动了整篇论证的脊柱。

触发条件

满足任一条 → 触发：

用户改动「研究问题」「核心假设」「主要结论」「因果机制」
用户改动方法描述（边界条件 / 关键参数 / 适用范围）
用户对已有研究 / 竞品的批评力度变化
用户改动数据的解释（不是数据本身）
用户提到「我把 §X.X 的 [核心概念] 改了」
用户在交付前要求「检查一下逻辑」「看看有没有矛盾」

强制流程

检测到核心声明改动
        │
        ▼
提取本次改动的「核心声明锚点」：
  - 研究问题 / 假设的关键短语
  - 因果关系的主词谓词宾语
  - 方法的边界条件 / 关键参数
  - 对已有研究 / 竞品的态度词
        │
        ▼
grep / 全文搜索这些锚点的出现位置
（不只是逐字匹配，还要语义同义词）
        │
        ▼
列出每个出现位置的上下文片段：
  - §X.X 第 Y 段：「...原文摘录约 50 字...」
        │
        ▼
告诉用户：「下面这些位置提到了同一概念，
本次改动后是否需要联动修改？」
        │
        ▼
等用户对每处给出 ✅同步改 / ❌保持原样 / ❓我看一下
        │
        ▼
按用户决定执行
完成后由 paper-verify-before-handoff 第 9 项「论证一致性」复核

标准回复模板

你这次改的是 [核心声明摘要]。我扫描了全文，下面 N 处提到了同一概念：

§1.2 第 3 段：「...原文摘录...」 → 这里说的是改前的版本，是否要同步？

§4.5 第 1 段：「...原文摘录...」 → 这里是结论部分，目前还在回答改前的研究问题。

§5.1 引言：「...原文摘录...」 → 这里复述了你的论点，措辞需要重新对齐吗？

请你逐条回复 ✅同步 / ❌保留 / ❓我看一下，再决定下一步。

提取「核心声明锚点」的规则

改动类型	抓什么作锚点
研究问题	关键短语（"是否影响"、"通过 X 影响 Y"）
因果机制	主词 + 谓词 + 宾语三元组
方法边界	边界条件 / 适用范围 / 关键参数
主要结论	结论的核心断言（强 / 弱 / 条件）
对已有研究态度	评价词（支持 / 反对 / 修正 / 扩展）
假设	假设的强弱程度词

锚点提取后，用 grep + 语义同义词扩展（同一概念的不同表述）做全文扫描。

❌ 反例

用户：「我把 §3.2 的研究问题从『XX 是否影响 YY』改成『XX 通过 ZZ 影响 YY』。」

错误做法：AI 只改了 §3.2 那一段，paper-verify-before-handoff 跑完前 9 项硬清单全 ✅，告诉用户「改完了」。

§1.4 摘要还说「研究 XX 是否影响 YY」
§4.5 结论还在讨论「XX → YY 的直接影响」
§5.3 讨论部分又开始扯 ZZ
导师一眼看出：摘要、研究问题、结论自相矛盾

正确做法：扫出 §1.4 / §4.5 / §5.3 三处提到同概念的位置，列出来让用户决定每处是否联动改。

与 paper-protect-terminology 的差别

	paper-protect-terminology	paper-logical-consistency
抓什么	术语字符没被改	概念语义保持一致
检查方式	grep 字符串	阅读上下文判断语义
谁来判断	AI（用 grep 数数）	用户（AI 只列疑点）
例	「BERT」没被改成「伯特」	§3.2 说「XX 通过 ZZ 影响 YY」，§4.5 也是这个表述

两者互不替代，各管各的事。

Rationalization Table

念头	现实
"用户只让我改 §3.2，其他章节不该动"	用户没意识到要联动改，AI 必须主动扫出来给他看
"改一个研究问题，应该不影响其他段落"	研究问题是论证链的源头，下游全部受影响
"全文搜索太重，差不多就行"	漏一处就是论证穿帮，导师一句"前后矛盾"全要返工
"只看保护词术语就够"	术语一致 ≠ 论证一致；术语没换但语义可能已经矛盾
"我能从 grep 结果直接判断哪些要改"	不能。语义判断必须用户做，AI 只负责"找疑点 + 呈现给用户"
"用户最后会自己复审，我不用扫"	用户复审容易漏，本 Skill 是给 AI 的纪律，不是给用户的提议

Read the full file on GitHub · 161 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

2mo ago First seen · 161 lines · 155 tokens per session scan A 717af25ff80a

Subscribe to this mod's changes

paper-logical-consistency is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lambenthan/paper-discipline-skills (20 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 155 tokens to every session and 1,857 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.

Scientific Writing and docs academic-writing claude-skills

paper-logical-consistency next to 6 skills from other repositories
Mod	Type	Stars	Last push	Licence	Scan	Tokens	Works with
paper-logical-consistencyLambenthan/paper-discipline-skills	Skill	20	5mo ago	MIT	A	155	Claude Code, Codex
running-cluster-experimentschgagne/claude-skills-research	Skill	5	yesterday	MIT	A	72	Claude Code, Codex
explaining-derivationschgagne/claude-skills-research	Skill	5	yesterday	MIT	A	109	Claude Code, Codex
self-surveying-literaturechgagne/claude-skills-research	Skill	5	yesterday	MIT	A	136	Claude Code, Codex
proofreading-paper-writingchgagne/claude-skills-research	Skill	5	yesterday	MIT	A	108	Claude Code, Codex
verifying-proofschgagne/claude-skills-research	Skill	5	yesterday	MIT	A	88	Claude Code, Codex
comparing-paperschgagne/claude-skills-research	Skill	5	yesterday	MIT	A	91	Claude Code, Codex