人文写作助手

Install

Verify the installation

After installing, start a new conversation and either:

1. Ask Claude: "What skills do you currently have loaded?" — humanities-writing-companion should appear in the list; or
2. Say a trigger phrase directly, e.g. "review my section" or "帮我看看这段" — the skill should activate and respond in its four-layer-critique voice rather than as a generic polisher.

If neither works, check that the folder sits directly under ~/.claude/skills/ (i.e., ~/.claude/skills/humanities-writing-companion/SKILL.md exists) and restart Claude Code.

Quick start · three typical scenarios

Showcase: Before / After

A real example of the four-layer critique in action. Author's draft paragraph (English translation of a Chinese-language thesis chapter on Stiegler):

Before. Stiegler's pharmakon concept shows that technology is both poison and remedy. AI is therefore a pharmakon as well. We must be careful in our use of AI, lest we fall into its negative effects. As Stiegler said, technology is a double-edged sword.

The skill's response, top-down, four layers:

🔴 Layer 1 · Foundation — Argument standing

  The paragraph claims pharmakon = "double-edged sword." Stiegler explicitly
  rejects this equivalence (WMLWL, p. 12): pharmakon is curative AND
  destructive AT THE SAME TIME, not alternately, and the destructive force
  is proportional to the curative one. "Double-edged sword" implies a
  user-choice framing; pharmakon implies a structural condition that
  precedes user choice. This is not nuance — it is the whole point of
  borrowing the concept from Derrida.

  Verdict: Foundation broken. Do not proceed to lower layers until fixed.

🟡 Layer 2 · Structure — Argument unfolding (deferred until L1 fixed)

🟢 Layer 3 · Paragraph (deferred)

⚪ Layer 4 · Sentence (deferred)

After the author rewrites the foundation, the same paragraph might become:

After. In Stiegler's framework — extended from Derrida's reading of Plato's Phaedrus — pharmakon names a structural condition rather than a moral choice: a technology's curative force is inseparable from and proportional to its destructive force (Stiegler, What Makes Life Worth Living, 2013, p. 12). For LLMs, this means the question is not "are we careful enough in our use?" — that frame presupposes a user fully outside the pharmakon. The question is: in what historical-organological configuration does the pharmakon's destructive face become structurally dominant? I argue, following Stiegler's reading of digital tertiary retention in Automatic Society (2017), that …

What changed: a clichéd "double-edged sword" framing replaced by Stiegler's actual conceptual move, a citation anchored at a verifiable page, and a forward-pointing thesis the next paragraph can develop. The skill did not write the rewrite — it identified that the foundation was wrong, named why, and refused to do sentence-level work until the foundation was repaired.

This is what "thinking partner, not polishing tool" means in practice.

---

Claude Agent SDK

SKILL.md can be loaded into your system prompt directly. The skill is plain text — no runtime dependencies.

Reflexive writing support (distinctive module)

If your research itself involves human-AI collaboration (autoethnography of AI-assisted writing), the skill provides six categories of "reflexive moments":

🔄 Direction change · 🚫 Refusal · 🎭 Voice conflict · 🔧 Tool dependency · 💡 Unexpected insight · 🤖 AI-trace awareness

Scholarly basis (citable in your paper): - Christou (2026). Reconfiguring Reflexivity in the Era of AI. Qualitative Inquiry. - Wiles (2025). Recursive Cognition in Practice. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. - Panke (2025). How Can (A)I Research This? An Autoethnographic Exploration of Generative AI.

Scenario 3: fighting AI cliché (two-version comparison)

If your paper has been through AI polishing but you want to restore the original voice:

Mode F · draft revision → compare AI-polished vs. original → keep improvements + restore voice

---

Comparison with adjacent tools

---