psyclaw 0.28.1 → 0.28.3

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/core/nature-abstract.md

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+# Nature Abstract Corpus Guidance
+
+Use this reference when drafting, restructuring, or polishing an abstract for
+flagship **Nature**, **Nature Communications**, **Nature Machine Intelligence**,
+or another **Nature Portfolio** title. The patterns were initially distilled
+from an author-supplied reading set of published NMI papers and are generalized
+here as Nature-style defaults. They are **corpus-derived writing guidance, not
+official journal requirements**. Current target-journal instructions,
+article-type rules, reporting standards, and the paper's actual evidence always
+take precedence.
+
+## Contents
+
+- [Treat the abstract as the shortest evidence chain](#treat-the-abstract-as-the-shortest-evidence-chain)
+- [Use a discovery-centred architecture](#use-a-discovery-centred-architecture)
+- [Make the gap sharp and brief](#make-the-gap-sharp-and-brief)
+- [Keep only answer-enabling method logic](#keep-only-answer-enabling-method-logic)
+- [Select one main claim](#select-one-main-claim)
+- [Use numbers by necessity](#use-numbers-by-necessity)
+- [End with the conceptual payoff](#end-with-the-conceptual-payoff)
+- [Align the abstract with the manuscript](#align-the-abstract-with-the-manuscript)
+- [Run the Nature abstract audit](#run-the-nature-abstract-audit)
+
+## Treat the abstract as the shortest evidence chain
+
+Do not write the abstract as a compressed Introduction or a catalogue of
+sections. Compress the entire paper into the shortest chain that makes the
+central discovery understandable, credible, and consequential:
+
+`precise problem or gap -> what the study does to resolve it -> main discovery -> decisive support or boundary -> what the discovery establishes -> why it matters`
+
+Draft the abstract after the Introduction question, Results evidence chain,
+and Discussion synthesis are stable. The abstract should reveal the paper's
+argument, not the chronology of the research process.
+
+## Use a discovery-centred architecture
+
+Use this default move order for a Nature Portfolio research article:
+
+1. known phenomenon or important problem
+2. precise unresolved question
+3. study design or conceptual move used to answer it
+4. main discovery
+5. one or two critical supporting findings or boundaries
+6. conceptual, technical, or field-level implication
+
+Move rapidly into the present study. Spend only enough background to make the
+gap intelligible. The centre of gravity must be `we found X`, not `we evaluated
+many models and datasets` or `we propose a framework`.
+
+This move order is rhetorical guidance, not a requirement for six sentences.
+Combine moves when needed to satisfy the current target-journal abstract limit.
+
+## Make the gap sharp and brief
+
+Use one sentence, or at most the minimum needed, to join the known phenomenon
+to the exact unknown. Prefer:
+
+`X is increasingly used or observed, but whether, why, or under what conditions Y remains unclear.`
+
+Do not spend abstract space proving that the whole field is important,
+summarizing several generations of prior work, or rehearsing the Introduction
+funnel. Avoid generic gaps such as `existing methods still face challenges`
+when the paper addresses a precise source, condition, mechanism, or boundary.
+
+## Keep only answer-enabling method logic
+
+Describe the method at the minimum level needed to understand why the design
+can answer the stated question. Include, when central:
+
+- the controlled factor or contrast that identifies the claim
+- the perturbation, intervention, or decomposition that tests the proposed
+  source or mechanism
+- the scope needed to judge generalization
+- the theoretical property needed to understand the contribution
+
+Omit learning rates, hardware, routine data splits, implementation modules,
+and dataset-by-dataset detail unless one of them defines the discovery or its
+boundary. The abstract is not a Methods summary.
+
+## Select one main claim
+
+Choose one central claim and at most one or two supporting claims. Compress the
+remaining Results into evidence categories or omit them.
+
+Use this hierarchy:
+
+| Role | Abstract decision |
+|---|---|
+| Main claim | State explicitly and give it the most space |
+| Decisive support | Keep when needed to make the main claim credible |
+| Boundary | Keep when it materially changes how the claim must be read |
+| Scope credential | Mention briefly only when breadth itself supports the inference |
+| Secondary analysis | Omit or reserve for the main text/SI |
+
+Do not give every Results subsection one sentence. Experimental scale is a
+credibility cue, not the protagonist: use `across ... settings` only when that
+scope is necessary to understand generality or confidence.
+
+## Use numbers by necessity
+
+Nature Portfolio abstracts do not require a numeric result merely to appear
+empirical.
+Include a number only when it performs one of these functions:
+
+- defines the strength or threshold of the main discovery
+- is itself the paper's principal law, prediction, or selection result
+- makes a decisive comparison interpretable
+- establishes a boundary that qualitative wording would obscure
+
+Omit numbers when the conceptual or mechanistic claim is the contribution and
+the number would displace the evidence logic. Comparative wording may be
+adequate when the exact effect size is not the headline claim.
+
+If several numbers compete for space, keep the one that most changes the
+reader's understanding of the central claim. Do not report sample counts,
+benchmarks, models, metrics, and multiple effect sizes simply because they are
+available.
+
+## End with the conceptual payoff
+
+Use the final sentence to state what the findings change, enable, connect, or
+make predictable. Prefer a bounded field-level payoff over self-evaluation:
+
+- a mechanism or principle becomes identifiable
+- a design or architecture choice becomes predictable
+- a method becomes applicable to a previously inaccessible regime
+- two areas become conceptually connected
+- a practical decision gains a quantitative or mechanistic basis
+
+Do not end with `the proposed method achieves superior performance` or a broad
+promise unsupported by the tested scope.
+
+## Align the abstract with the manuscript
+
+Treat the four sections as different compressions of the same central claim:
+
+- **Abstract:** the manuscript's shortest claim–evidence–implication chain
+- **Introduction:** why the exact question must be asked
+- **Results:** the full escalating evidence chain that answers it
+- **Discussion:** what the answers mean together
+
+Every abstract claim must map to visible Results evidence. The final implication
+must match the Discussion synthesis without exceeding its boundaries. Do not
+introduce a claim, mechanism, or application in the abstract that the main text
+does not establish.
+
+## Run the Nature abstract audit
+
+Build this compact map before sentence polishing:
+
+| Abstract move | Content | Manuscript support | Keep test |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Gap | Exact unresolved question | Introduction | Can it be stated in one sharp sentence? |
+| Design | Answer-enabling logic | Methods/Results | Does it explain why the question is answerable? |
+| Main discovery | One central claim | Results | Is this the paper's real advance? |
+| Support/boundary | One or two decisive findings | Results | Does each materially strengthen or bound the claim? |
+| Payoff | What the finding changes | Discussion | Is it important and scope-calibrated? |
+
+Then delete or compress:
+
+- background already implied by the title
+- implementation detail that does not explain identification or inference
+- experiment inventory presented instead of a discovery
+- secondary Results included only for completeness
+- numbers that do not define, support, or bound the main claim
+- a final sentence that merely says the method performs well
+
+Read the abstract once with all method and dataset names hidden. If the central
+discovery and why it matters are no longer clear, the abstract is organized
+around implementation rather than insight.

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/core/nature-introduction.md

@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+# Nature Introduction Corpus Guidance
+
+Use this reference when drafting, restructuring, or polishing an Introduction
+for flagship **Nature**, **Nature Communications**, **Nature Machine
+Intelligence**, or another **Nature Portfolio** title. The patterns were
+initially distilled from an author-supplied reading set of published NMI papers
+and are generalized here as Nature-style defaults. They are **corpus-derived
+writing guidance, not official journal requirements**. Current target-journal
+instructions, article-type rules, reporting standards, and the paper's actual
+evidence always take precedence.
+
+## Contents
+
+- [Make the Introduction converge](#make-the-introduction-converge)
+- [State an exact knowledge gap](#state-an-exact-knowledge-gap)
+- [Use literature to construct the gap](#use-literature-to-construct-the-gap)
+- [Frame a scientific question](#frame-a-scientific-question)
+- [Let the answer emerge late](#let-the-answer-emerge-late)
+- [End with a compact research route](#end-with-a-compact-research-route)
+- [Align Introduction, Results, and Discussion](#align-introduction-results-and-discussion)
+- [Run the Nature Introduction audit](#run-the-nature-introduction-audit)
+
+## Make the Introduction converge
+
+Build a narrowing argument rather than an extended topic overview:
+
+`important problem -> specific phenomenon or difficulty -> what existing approaches establish -> unresolved limitation or tension -> exact unknown -> research question or hypothesis -> what this study does`
+
+Move quickly. Assume the target journal's readers understand the broad field's
+importance; use only enough context to make the specific unresolved problem
+intelligible. By the end of the opening paragraph, expose the concrete
+phenomenon, contradiction, failure condition, or bottleneck whenever the
+material permits it.
+
+Delete or compress background that neither narrows the problem nor makes the
+eventual question necessary. A history of the field is not a substitute for a
+problem funnel.
+
+## State an exact knowledge gap
+
+Express the gap as something genuinely unknown, disputed, or untested. Prefer:
+
+- what causes an observed advantage or failure
+- under what conditions a claimed benefit appears or disappears
+- which mechanism, information source, or design choice is necessary
+- why two credible bodies of evidence disagree
+- whether a proposed representation or signal adds information beyond the
+  current baseline
+
+Avoid `existing methods have limitations` unless the next clause names the
+specific limitation and why resolving it matters. The reader should be able to
+complete the sentence:
+
+> It remains unclear whether, why, or under what conditions ______.
+
+Do not define the gap as the absence of the author's method. `No one has used
+our architecture for this task` is not yet a scientific unknown.
+
+## Use literature to construct the gap
+
+Organize citations by argumentative function, not as an author-by-author
+catalogue:
+
+1. establish the known capability, phenomenon, or prevailing explanation
+2. show what prior work has already resolved
+3. expose the unresolved condition, boundary, or contradiction
+4. make the present research question unavoidable
+
+When the literature contains tension, state both sides fairly and use the
+tension to motivate a discriminating question. Avoid generic transitions such
+as `substantial progress has been made, but challenges remain` when the cited
+work supports a more exact conflict or boundary.
+
+Every literature paragraph must earn its place by narrowing the question. Move
+material that only demonstrates breadth to Related Work, Methods context, or a
+shorter citation cluster.
+
+## Frame a scientific question
+
+Prefer a question about a phenomenon, condition, mechanism, or boundary over a
+method-demand claim:
+
+- weak: `Existing methods are limited; therefore, a new method is needed.`
+- stronger: `Performance improves in some settings but deteriorates in others;
+  which condition determines whether the proposed mechanism is beneficial?`
+
+Let novelty arise from the unanswered question and the study design capable of
+answering it. Remove unsupported novelty adjectives such as `novel`,
+`groundbreaking`, `unprecedented`, or `innovative` when the question,
+controlled comparison, or diagnostic perturbation already demonstrates the
+advance.
+
+## Let the answer emerge late
+
+Do not force the paper's preferred concept, mechanism, or framework into the
+opening before the problem logic has motivated it. First establish the
+phenomenon, limitation, and exact unknown; then introduce the study's conceptual
+move as the natural way to resolve that unknown.
+
+Use transitions such as `To address this question`, `To test this possibility`,
+or `To this end` only after the question is explicit. Do not use the transition
+to conceal a missing gap.
+
+## End with a compact research route
+
+Prefer one connected closing paragraph over a ceremonial contribution list for
+a Nature Portfolio research article, unless the target journal, article type,
+editor, or user requires another structure. The paragraph should state:
+
+`research question -> study design or conceptual move -> decisive evaluation route -> principal scope of inference`
+
+Preview the logic of the Results without replaying all findings, metrics, or
+figure-level detail. A restrained result-level statement is acceptable when it
+clarifies the paper's answer, but do not turn the final paragraph into an
+abstract or Discussion.
+
+The route should tell the reader why the chosen comparisons, perturbations,
+decompositions, or boundary tests can answer the stated question. Method names
+alone do not provide that logic.
+
+## Align Introduction, Results, and Discussion
+
+Treat the three sections as one story at different levels:
+
+- **Introduction:** establish why each central question must be asked.
+- **Results:** answer the questions through an escalating evidence chain.
+- **Discussion:** synthesize what those answers mean together.
+
+Draft backward from the paper's actual Results claims. For every central
+Results subsection, identify the question that the Introduction must motivate.
+For every question or hypothesis introduced, identify the Results subsection
+that answers it. Do not create parallel stories.
+
+A useful alignment pattern is:
+
+`Introduction: phenomenon -> unresolved source -> necessary-condition question -> decomposition question`
+
+`Results: establish phenomenon -> identify source -> perturb or test necessity -> decompose contributions -> establish boundaries`
+
+`Discussion: synthesize the answers -> relate to theory and prior work -> state implications and limits`
+
+## Run the Nature Introduction audit
+
+First state the paper's exact unknown in one sentence. If that sentence is
+vague, repair the gap before polishing prose.
+
+Then build this reverse-outline table:
+
+| Introduction unit | Narrowing move | Literature function | Question motivated | Results answer |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Paragraph or sentence block | What becomes more specific here? | Establish, resolve, contrast, or expose gap | Which exact question follows? | Which Results subsection answers it? |
+
+Flag and revise any unit that:
+
+- adds field background without narrowing the problem
+- lists studies without constructing a known–unknown transition
+- introduces the solution before the reader can see why it is needed
+- claims novelty mainly through adjectives
+- previews a Results claim for which no question has been motivated
+- motivates a question that the Results never answer
+
+Before finalizing, run a deletion test: if removing a paragraph leaves the
+exact gap, research question, and Results roadmap intact, compress, relocate, or
+delete that paragraph.

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/core/nature-results-discussion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
+# Nature Results–Discussion Corpus Guidance
+
+Use this reference when drafting, restructuring, or polishing Results and
+Discussion for flagship **Nature**, **Nature Communications**, **Nature Machine
+Intelligence**, or another **Nature Portfolio** title. The patterns were
+initially distilled from an author-supplied NMI reading set and reinforced by a
+second author-supplied comparison set of flagship Nature papers. They are
+generalized here as Nature-style defaults and remain **corpus-derived writing
+guidance, not official journal requirements**. Current target-journal
+instructions, article-type rules, reporting standards, and the paper's actual
+evidence always take precedence.
+
+## Contents
+
+- [Core division of labour](#core-division-of-labour)
+- [Build Results as claim escalation](#build-results-as-claim-escalation)
+- [Choose an evidence-chain archetype](#choose-an-evidence-chain-archetype)
+- [Prevent same-level repetition](#prevent-same-level-repetition)
+- [Prefer diagnostic experiments when mechanism matters](#prefer-diagnostic-experiments-when-mechanism-matters)
+- [End evidence units with an inference](#end-evidence-units-with-an-inference)
+- [Apply the local-interpretation gate](#apply-the-local-interpretation-gate)
+- [Write Discussion as synthesis, not re-demonstration](#write-discussion-as-synthesis-not-re-demonstration)
+- [Run the Nature claim-escalation audit](#run-the-nature-claim-escalation-audit)
+
+## Core division of labour
+
+- **Results:** establish and advance the paper's scientific claims through an
+  evidence chain. Results may include comparison, ablation, perturbation,
+  robustness, failure analysis, directly evidence-bound interpretation, and a
+  local inference.
+- **Discussion:** synthesize several established claims into a higher-order
+  understanding, relate that understanding to prior work, explain its
+  importance, and bound its implications.
+
+Do not enforce the mechanical split `Results = facts only` and
+`Discussion = all interpretation`. The operative boundary is local versus
+synthetic interpretation: keep an explanation in Results when it directly
+resolves the experiment just reported; move broader theory, literature
+integration, general implications, and extended speculation to Discussion.
+
+## Build Results as claim escalation
+
+Make each Results subsection answer one scientific question and establish one
+new claim. Prefer a conclusion-bearing heading over a procedural experiment
+label when the evidence supports it.
+
+Order adjacent subsections so that each result creates the next question:
+
+`observation -> unresolved question -> targeted experiment -> comparison or perturbation -> local interpretation -> stronger claim -> next question`
+
+At paper level, prefer an escalating arc such as:
+
+`phenomenon -> source -> necessary condition or mechanism -> decomposition -> boundary or robustness`
+
+Do not substitute repeated demonstrations of the same claim for escalation.
+Two subsections may share data, conditions, or methods; they become redundant
+only when they collapse to the same inferential conclusion.
+
+## Choose an evidence-chain archetype
+
+Organize Results by inferential function, not by a routine inventory such as
+`system description -> benchmark -> ablation`. Select or combine the archetype
+that matches the scientific claim:
+
+### Discovery loop
+
+Use when evidence changes what should be tested next:
+
+`initial hypothesis -> real or decisive test -> analyse the resulting evidence -> refine the hypothesis -> next test -> architecture or mechanism validation`
+
+The Results should preserve the epistemic loop without becoming a chronological
+lab notebook. Keep only iterations that change the claim or the next scientific
+question.
+
+### Core capability and validation envelope
+
+Use when the paper establishes one central capability, then asks whether it is
+reliable, safe, general, or confounded:
+
+`establish core capability -> validate in decisive settings -> test safety or bias -> rule out central alternatives -> define limits`
+
+Treat medication, subgroup, decision, bias, or perturbation analyses as the
+validation envelope of the main story when they answer whether the same core
+capability survives important conditions. Do not present each check as an
+unrelated second discovery.
+
+### Capability ladder
+
+Use when a system or model supports progressively stronger claims:
+
+`quantitative performance -> robustness to data properties -> stronger competitors or tuned ensembles -> interpretability -> broader foundation or transfer abilities`
+
+Each rung must justify a stronger inference. More datasets or another benchmark
+at the same inferential level do not automatically create a new rung.
+
+Across archetypes, the most common functional chain is:
+
+`establish the phenomenon -> stress-test it -> rule out alternatives -> broaden it -> interpret it -> bound it`
+
+Not every paper needs every move. Preserve the shortest chain sufficient for
+the central claim.
+
+## Prevent same-level repetition
+
+A later subsection may reuse an earlier baseline, control, or reference
+contrast, but it must not present the same comparison and conclusion as a new
+result. Treat reused conditions as **necessary comparators**, not as the centre
+of the later subsection.
+
+Ask what deeper discriminator the later analysis adds:
+
+- content versus correct correspondence
+- association versus necessity
+- nominal performance versus robustness
+- apparent gain versus a data, compute, or tuning confound
+- one setting versus the boundary of generalization
+
+Make the new perturbation, falsification, stronger comparator, or boundary test
+the subsection's decisive evidence. If two adjacent subsections can both be
+summarized as `X helps`, merge them, compress the repeated contrast, or move the
+weaker demonstration to SI. A valid progression looks like:
+
+`X is associated with the effect -> disrupting the proposed relation removes the effect -> therefore the relation, not merely the presence of X, is necessary within the tested design`
+
+## Prefer diagnostic experiments when mechanism matters
+
+When the claim concerns why a result occurs, do more than show performance with
+and without a component. Where scientifically valid, perturb, shuffle, mask,
+misalign, remove, or otherwise disrupt the proposed information or mechanism,
+then test whether the predicted degradation occurs.
+
+Use the logic:
+
+`association -> targeted disruption -> predicted degradation -> bounded mechanism inference`
+
+Do not turn this pattern into automatic causal language. Calibrate the
+inference to the intervention, controls, design, and alternative explanations.
+
+## End evidence units with an inference
+
+After a coherent group of measurements, state what the evidence establishes;
+do not stop at a sequence of numbers. The inference must be no broader than the
+evaluated conditions.
+
+Report failures, reversals, anomalous scaling, weak subgroups, and performance
+trade-offs when they materially define where the claim holds, weakens, or
+fails. Do not hide a conclusion-changing boundary in Supplementary
+Information.
+
+Place robustness in the main text when it establishes a necessary condition,
+rules out a central alternative, reveals a failure boundary, or otherwise
+creates an independent scientific inference. Route it to SI when it only adds
+reassurance that the same conclusion survives another seed, estimator,
+threshold, or secondary specification.
+
+## Apply the local-interpretation gate
+
+Results may use calibrated language such as `suggests`, `indicates`, `likely
+because`, `probably owing to`, or `we speculate that` only when all of the
+following hold:
+
+1. the interpretation answers the question raised by the immediately preceding
+   result
+2. the evidence for it is visible in the current subsection
+3. uncertainty and alternative explanations remain explicit
+4. the passage closes the local evidence unit instead of opening a broad field
+   discussion
+
+If several sentences are needed to reconcile theory, prior literature, or
+competing mechanisms, state the bounded local inference in Results and move the
+extended synthesis to Discussion or SI as appropriate.
+
+## Write Discussion as synthesis, not re-demonstration
+
+Use the move order:
+
+`brief central finding anchor -> cross-Results synthesis -> relation to prior work or theory -> importance -> boundary conditions and limitations -> broader implications or future directions`
+
+Open by redefining the paper's central discovery in one compressed judgement.
+A short recap—and occasionally one indispensable anchor number—is acceptable.
+Then move immediately to mechanism or conceptual interpretation, significance,
+limitations, and future directions. Do not repeat the full comparison, effect
+size, statistical test, and inference already used to demonstrate the claim in
+Results.
+
+Distinguish:
+
+- **necessary recap / anchor:** `Results establishes X; taken together, X implies Y`
+- **redundant re-demonstration:** Results and Discussion both replay
+  `A versus B -> effect -> test -> therefore X`
+
+Some published Nature Portfolio content types may use a Conclusion rather than
+a standalone Discussion. Treat that as corpus variation, not permission to
+ignore the current target-journal article-type instructions or an
+editor-provided template.
+
+## Run the Nature claim-escalation audit
+
+For each Results subsection, record:
+
+| Audit field | Question |
+|---|---|
+| Scientific question | What unresolved question does this subsection answer? |
+| New claim | What proposition becomes supportable here that was not supportable before? |
+| Evidence-chain role | Establish, stress-test, discriminate, broaden, interpret, or bound? |
+| Decisive evidence | Which comparison, perturbation, or analysis establishes it? |
+| Inference gain | What independent inference would disappear if the subsection were removed? |
+| Next question | What uncertainty naturally motivates the following subsection? |
+
+Flag adjacent subsections when their `New claim` or `Inference gain` entries are
+substantively identical. Merge, compress, or move the weaker repetition to SI.
+
+Before finalizing Discussion, map every repeated claim to a distinct rhetorical
+function: `anchor`, `synthesize`, `relate`, `bound`, or `extend`. Delete any
+repetition that only re-demonstrates the Results evidence.

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/core/paper-type-taxonomy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Paper-type taxonomy
+
+Canonical 5-type vocabulary used by both `nature-polishing` and `nature-writing` (and any future skill on the `paper_type` axis).
+
+## The five types
+
+| Type | One-line definition | Reader's central question |
+|---|---|---|
+| **research** | Reports a phenomenon, mechanism, or finding from primary observation or experiment. | What was found and what does it mean? |
+| **methods** | Proposes a new method, protocol, or measurement and demonstrates its advantage. | Does it work? Is it better? Is it reproducible? |
+| **hypothesis** | Establishes or rules out a causal explanation through targeted evidence. | Is the proposed mechanism the right one? |
+| **algorithmic** | Proposes a procedure, model, system, or device and shows it performs reliably and advantageously. | Does it perform under fair comparison? Where does it fail? |
+| **review** | Synthesizes the state of a field, organizing the literature by argument, not by paper. | What is known, where is the disagreement, what is open? |
+
+## Detection guidance
+
+- If the user names a paper type, use it.
+- If the manuscript reports experiments testing a stated mechanism → **hypothesis**.
+- If the manuscript proposes a procedure/model and reports comparisons → **algorithmic**.
+- If the manuscript proposes a measurement or protocol and reports validation → **methods**.
+- If the manuscript synthesizes prior literature without new primary data → **review**.
+- Otherwise → **research** (default).
+
+## Notes on legacy vocab
+
+Some older notes use a longer taxonomy (mechanism / method / resource / device / model / clinical / materials / computational / interdisciplinary). Map onto the five canonical types:
+
+- mechanism, clinical, materials → **research** or **hypothesis** depending on whether a causal claim is central
+- method → **methods**
+- model, device, computational → **algorithmic**
+- resource → usually **methods** (a dataset/benchmark paper) or **research**
+- interdisciplinary → use the dominant argument structure, not the field label
+
+## Skill-specific action layers
+
+Each skill's `static/fragments/paper_type/<type>.md` adds the **action layer** for that skill on top of this taxonomy:
+
+- `nature-polishing` adds diagnostic rules (what to look for, what to fix).
+- `nature-writing` adds constructive rules (argument chain, drafting order).
+
+The taxonomy here is the **shared vocabulary**; the action is skill-specific.

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/core/reader-workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Reader workflow
+
+Used by both `nature-polishing` and `nature-writing`. Always-loaded shared core.
+
+## The reader's question sequence
+
+Most readers of a scientific paper follow a stable sequence:
+
+1. **Relevance** — Is this for me?
+2. **Novelty** — What is new here?
+3. **Trust** — Do I believe it?
+4. **Reuse** — Can I use it?
+5. **Meaning** — What does it mean, and where are the boundaries?
+
+Whether the task is drafting from scratch or polishing existing prose, the paper should help the reader answer these questions in this order.
+
+## Implications
+
+- A draft that buries novelty (question 2) behind methods detail (which serves question 3) will lose readers in the first paragraph.
+- A polish that improves sentence-level fluency without surfacing relevance (question 1) earlier may still fail with broad-audience readers.
+- "Where are the boundaries" (question 5) is the most commonly skipped. Both drafting and polishing should expose it, not paper over it.