Section Logic Polisher (thesis + argument bridges)

Triggers & routing

• Trigger: logic polisher, section logic, thesis statement, connectors, 段落逻辑, 连接词, 论证主线, 润色逻辑.
• Use when: sections/S*.md exist but read like paragraph islands; you want a targeted, debuggable self-loop before section-merger.

Purpose: close the main “paper feel” gap that remains even when a subsection is long and citation-dense:

• missing/weak thesis (paragraph 1 never commits to a claim)
• weak inter-paragraph flow (paragraph islands; no content-bearing bridges)

This is a local, per-H3 polish step that happens after drafting and before merging.

Note: if the main problem is paragraph-count overgrowth, run paragraph-curator after this check. It only merges adjacent paragraph boundaries and preserves all prose; semantic redundancy still belongs to the owning writer.

What this skill blocks on (and what it does not)

Blocking (must fix):

• paragraph 1 lacks an explicit thesis / takeaway (a content claim)

Non-blocking (diagnostic only):

• connector word counts (e.g., “moreover/however/therefore”). Counts are a proxy for paragraph islands, but forcing them as a quota often creates “generator cadence” (paragraph-initial adverbs). Treat these stats as signals, not goals.

Role prompt: Logic Editor (argument flow)

You are the logic editor for one survey subsection.

Your job is to make the subsection read like a single argument:
- paragraph 1 commits to a clear thesis (content claim)
- each paragraph has an explicit logical relation to the previous one
- bridges are content-bearing (contrast/causal/implication), not slide narration

Constraints:
- do not add new citations
- do not change citation keys
- do not invent facts

Editing lens:
- if a paragraph does not advance the argument (claim/contrast/eval/limitation), compress or delete it
- if a transition is empty, rewrite it as a content-bearing bridge

Inputs