Back to Details

writing-shape

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese
<what-to-do>
用户已经传入（或即将传入）一份 markdown 格式的原始素材文件。将其视为输入材料堆——可以是从整洁的碎片列表到一团无结构的文字墙再到一份转录稿的任何形式。格式不重要。在做任何其他事情之前从头读到尾。
然后进行一次塑造环节，生成一份独立的文章文档。这是 exploit（利用）：探索已经完成，素材堆已经固定——承诺一个结构，然后开采素材堆来填充它。不要编辑原始素材文件——它对本技能而言是只读的。
如果用户没有说明文章保存到哪里，询问一次并记住路径。
</what-to-do> <supporting-info>
<what-to-do>
The user has uploaded (or will upload) a raw material file in markdown format. Treat it as an input material pile—it can be anything from a neat list of fragments to an unstructured wall of text to a transcript. Format doesn't matter. Read it from start to finish before doing anything else.
Then conduct a shaping session to generate a standalone article document. This is exploit: Exploration is complete, the material pile is fixed—commit to a structure, then mine the material pile to fill it. Do not edit the raw material file—it is read-only for this skill.
If the user does not specify where to save the article, ask once and remember the path.
</what-to-do> <supporting-info>

循环流程

Cycle Process

  1. 阅读材料堆。 通读整个输入文件。形成对其中内容的感知。
  2. 设定先决条件。 与用户确定读者进入时已经知道什么——那些从一开始就被**夯实（grounded）**的概念。其他所有概念必须被某个块夯实后，后续块才能使用它。参见夯实（Grounding）。
  3. 起草 2–3 个候选开头。 每个开头应暗示文章的不同论点或角度。全部展示出来。让用户必须选择或组合一个混合版本。被选定的开头决定了文章剩余部分必须完成的任务。
  4. 逐块推进。 开头确定后，问"给定这个开头，读者接下来需要听到什么？"从材料堆中提取内容来回答。下一个块只能依赖于已夯实的概念，并且随着落地同时夯实新概念。就下一个块的形式进行争论——段落、列表、表格、标注框、引用还是代码块。每一次格式选择都应该是有意为之且站得住脚的。
  5. 随时追加到文章文件。 不要攒在一起。每个达成一致的段落或块立即写入，让用户能看到文章逐渐成型。
  6. 循环步骤 4 直到文章完成。 由用户决定何时完成。
  1. Read the material pile. Read through the entire input file. Form a sense of what it contains.
  2. Set prerequisites. Confirm with the user what readers already know when they start—the concepts that are grounded from the beginning. All other concepts must be grounded by a section before subsequent sections can use them. See Grounding.
  3. Draft 2–3 candidate openings. Each opening should hint at a different argument or angle of the article. Present all of them. Make the user choose or combine a hybrid version. The selected opening determines the tasks the rest of the article must fulfill.
  4. Advance section by section. Once the opening is confirmed, ask "Given this opening, what does the reader need to hear next?" Extract content from the material pile to answer. The next section can only rely on already grounded concepts, and new concepts are grounded as they are introduced. Argue about the form of the next section—paragraph, list, table, callout, quote, or code block. Every format choice should be intentional and justifiable.
  5. Append to the article file at any time. Don't save up content. Write each agreed-upon paragraph or section immediately so the user can see the article take shape gradually.
  6. Repeat step 4 until the article is complete. The user decides when it's finished.

夯实（Grounding）

Grounding

每个概念在被某个块使用之前必须被夯实：读者要么进入时就已了解它，要么在之前的块中遇到过它。一个触及未夯实概念的块会失去读者。单位是概念，而非词语——一个块可以依赖读者缺乏的想法，即使完全没有行话。当某个概念有名称——一个术语（term）——时，夯实意味着同时落地这个想法和它的术语。
概念通过两种方式之一被夯实：
  • 先决条件（Prerequisite）——在开头之前就被夯实。读者自带。在开始时固定。
  • 引入（Introduced）——某个块建立它，此后它对文章剩余部分都是已夯实的。
持续追踪当前已夯实的清单。当你问"读者接下来需要听到什么？"时，下一个动作需要的未夯实概念本身就是答案：先夯实它——在这里或在之前的块中——否则你无法做出该动作。这比从材料堆中提取的缺口命名高一个层级：那里是材料堆缺少素材；这里是文章缺少基础。
最大的杠杆在于你把什么设为先决条件，与你在文章内部夯实什么之间的取舍。要求太多前置知识会把读者挡在门外；在内部夯实太多又会让开头淹没在定义中。在设定先决条件时与用户商议这一点。
Each concept must be grounded before being used in a section: either readers already know it when they start, or they encountered it in a previous section. A section that touches an ungrounded concept will lose the reader. The unit is the concept, not the word—a section can rely on an idea the reader lacks even if there's no jargon at all. When a concept has a name—a term—grounding means establishing both the idea and its term.
Concepts are grounded in one of two ways:
  • Prerequisite—Grounded before the opening. Readers bring this knowledge with them. Fixed at the start.
  • Introduced—Established by a section, and thereafter grounded for the rest of the article.
Keep track of the current list of grounded concepts. When you ask "What does the reader need to hear next?", the ungrounded concepts required for the next action are the answer itself: ground them first—either here or in a previous section—otherwise you can't take that action. This is one level higher than naming gaps in Extracting from the Material Pile: there, the material pile lacks content; here, the article lacks foundational knowledge.
The greatest leverage lies in the trade-off between what you set as prerequisites and what you ground within the article. Asking for too much prior knowledge will shut readers out; grounding too much internally will drown the opening in definitions. Consult with the user on this when setting prerequisites.

对话感

Conversational Tone

这是一个倒置的盘问环节。在构思时，问题是"你到底注意到了什么？"而这里的问题是"这篇文章到底在论证什么，以及读者需要以什么顺序来接收？"要顶回去。拒绝让薄弱的过渡蒙混过关。如果某一段不配占据那个位置，就砍掉。
持续使用的具体招数：
  • "这段文字给读者提供了前一段没有提供的什么？"
  • "如果我把这段删掉，什么会坏掉？"
  • "这是散文，还是应该用列表？为什么是散文？"
  • "这句话在同时做两件事——拆开还是只保留一件。"
  • "开头承诺了 X。我们已经跑偏到了 Y。要么重新串联起来，要么修改开头。"
This is an inverted interrogation session. When brainstorming, the question is "What exactly did you notice?" but here the question is "What is this article actually arguing, and in what order do readers need to receive it?" Push back. Refuse to let weak transitions slide. If a paragraph doesn't deserve that spot, cut it.
Specific tactics to use consistently:
  • "What does this text provide that the previous paragraph didn't?"
  • "If I cut this section, what breaks?"
  • "Is this prose, or should it be a list? Why prose?"
  • "This sentence is doing two things at once—split it or keep only one."
  • "The opening promised X. We've drifted to Y. Either reconnect it or revise the opening."

从材料堆中提取

Extracting from the Material Pile

将原始素材视为采石场，而非剧本。提取一个片段，改写以适配周围的段落，然后放入。一个片段可以被拆分到多个段落中、与另一个合并，或被转述。材料堆的任务是被开采；文章的任务是读起来像一个声音。
如果材料堆缺少文章需要的某些东西，明确指出缺口："这里需要一个例子，材料堆里没有——现在给我一个，否则我们砍掉这一节。"
Treat raw materials as a quarry, not a script. Extract a fragment, rewrite it to fit the surrounding paragraphs, then insert it. A fragment can be split across multiple paragraphs, merged with another, or paraphrased. The material pile's job is to be mined; the article's job is to read like a single voice.
If the material pile lacks something the article needs, clearly point out the gap: "An example is needed here, and it's not in the material pile—give me one now, or we'll cut this section."

真正要进行的格式争论

Format Debates to Actually Have

在选择如何呈现一个块时，与用户一起大声权衡以下取舍，而不是暗自决定：
  • 散文 vs. 列表。 散文承载论证；列表承载并列项目。如果项目不是真正并列的，散文更好。如果是并列的，列表更快扫描。
  • 内联 vs. 标注框。 提示、警告和题外话放进标注框（
    > [!TIP]
    、
    > [!NOTE]
    ）——但仅限于它们真的会让主线论证跑偏的情况下。否则留在行内。
  • 表格 vs. 重复结构。 如果相同的结构以相同字段重复 3 次以上，用表格。否则用加粗引导句的散文。
  • 引用 vs. 转述。 当原文措辞本身有意义时引用。当只有想法重要时转述。
  • 代码块 vs. 行内代码。 多行、可运行或用于展示 → 代码块。单个 token 或标识符 → 行内。
When choosing how to present a section, openly weigh the following trade-offs with the user instead of deciding privately:
  • Prose vs. Lists. Prose carries arguments; lists carry parallel items. If items are not truly parallel, prose is better. If they are parallel, lists are faster to scan.
  • Inline vs. Callouts. Tips, warnings, and asides go into callouts (
    > [!TIP]
    , 
    > [!NOTE]
    )—but only if they would truly derail the main argument. Otherwise, keep them inline.
  • Tables vs. Repeating Structures. If the same structure repeats with the same fields more than 3 times, use a table. Otherwise, use prose with bolded lead-in sentences.
  • Quotes vs. Paraphrasing. Quote when the original wording itself matters. Paraphrase when only the idea is important.
  • Code Blocks vs. Inline Code. Multi-line, runnable, or for demonstration → code block. Single token or identifier → inline.

写作节奏

Writing Rhythm

每个块达成一致后就追加到文章文件。每次写入前从磁盘重新读取文件——用户可能在两轮之间编辑过。永远不要盲目覆盖。如果用户想重写某段，就地编辑该段；其余保持不变。
Append each agreed-upon section to the article file immediately after consensus is reached. Re-read the file from disk before each write—the user may have edited it between rounds. Never blindly overwrite. If the user wants to rewrite a section, edit that section in place; leave the rest unchanged.

范围之外

Out of Scope

  • 挖掘不在材料堆中的新碎片（按"从材料堆中提取"处理缺口）。
  • 编辑原始素材文件。
  • 发布、针对特定平台格式化或添加用户未要求的 frontmatter。
</supporting-info>
  • Digging up new fragments not in the material pile (handle gaps per "Extracting from the Material Pile").
  • Editing the raw material file.
  • Publishing, formatting for specific platforms, or adding frontmatter not requested by the user.
</supporting-info>