Mind Workflow

Mind Workflow Router (mind-workflow)

The orchestrator for a Mind submission. Figure out the stage and the content type, then send the user to the matching skill. Mind takes quality as the sole criterion and excludes no area, style, or school of philosophy — but every accepted piece rests on a clear thesis defended by a valid, sound argument. The router's first job is to make sure that argument exists before polishing prose.

When to trigger

• Starting a new Mind paper and unsure where to begin
• Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
• Deciding whether the piece is an article, discussion, book review, or critical notice
• Returning with a decision letter (route to mind-revision-and-response)

First question: which content type?

Most submissions are articles. Discussions, reviews, and critical notices are tighter; do not inflate one into an article (or pad an article down into a note).

Routing map (stage → skill)

Idea / fit for Mind?            → mind-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the debate?→ mind-literature-positioning
What exactly is the thesis?     → mind-thesis-and-argument
Strongest objection answered?   → mind-objections-and-replies
Are the concepts precise?       → mind-conceptual-analysis-and-method
Is the paper well-built?        → mind-structure-and-exposition
Does it read clearly?           → mind-writing-style
References in MIND house style? → mind-citation-and-style
How will it be judged?          → mind-review-process
Ready to submit?                → mind-submission
Got a decision / R&R?           → mind-revision-and-response

Default order

topic-selection → literature-positioning → thesis-and-argument → objections-and-replies → conceptual-analysis-and-method → structure-and-exposition → writing-style → citation-and-style → review-process → submission → revision-and-response

Iterate: most papers loop thesis ↔ objections ↔ conceptual analysis several times before exposition.

Anti-patterns

• Polishing prose before the thesis and argument are actually settled
• Treating Mind like an empirical venue (it has no data, statistics, or robustness checks)
• A survey of a topic with no original thesis of one's own
• Skipping the strongest objection — at Mind the reply is much of the contribution

Router pass for Mind

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the target thesis, argument map, objection sequence, and dialectical payoff; then test whether the manuscript addresses analytic-philosophy reviewers who expect a precise thesis, live objection, argument structure, and contribution to an active debate.

• Primary move: Run fit gate, evidence gate, writing gate, source-map gate, and output contract; stop when a gate lacks evidence.
• Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
• Neighbor test: compare against Philosophical Review for broader top philosophy, Nous for analytic breadth, Ethics for normative/political theory; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
• Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Stage】idea / positioning / thesis / objections / concepts / structure / writing / citation / review / submit / revise
【Type】Article / Discussion / Book review / Critical notice
【Route to】mind-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — philosophy reference works, logic tools, the MIND Stylesheet
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official Mind URLs behind every fact in this pack