Writing Style (mind-writing-style)
Mind prizes prose that makes a rigorous argument easy to follow. Authors are explicitly asked to
present arguments so they are accessible to a broad readership among philosophers, and where
technical material appears, to accompany it with informal exposition. This skill is about clarity
and economy at the sentence level — not about generating claims (that is mind-thesis-and-argument).
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction or doing a final clarity pass
- A reader said the prose is "dense," "hard to follow," or "only specialists can read it"
- A formal passage needs an informal gloss
- Over the word limit and needing to cut words without losing the argument
Write for a broad philosophical readership
- Plain, exact prose. Short declarative sentences for the key moves. Say the claim, then support
it. Avoid ornament that hides the inference.
- Gloss every technicality. When you introduce symbolism, a formal definition, or a term of art,
immediately restate the point in ordinary language. A philosopher outside your subfield should
follow the argument.
- Argument-first sentences. Lead with the claim, then the reason — not a wind-up that buries it.
Make the logical connective explicit ("so," "because," "but," "therefore").
- Define on first use; one term per concept. Do not let a concept drift across two words, or one
word cover two concepts (guards against the equivocation
mind-conceptual-analysis-and-method flags).
- Quote sparingly and purposefully. Use a quotation to fix the target view precisely, not to fill
space; analyze every quotation you include.
Mechanics
- Prefer the active voice and concrete subjects; name who claims what.
- Numbered premises or labeled claims (P1, P2, …) aid the reader when the argument is intricate.
- Keep footnotes for genuine qualifications and sources, not for a parallel essay.
- One consistent citation style throughout (full conversion to MIND house style happens in
mind-citation-and-style).
Fit the ~8,000-word limit
- Cut hedging, throat-clearing, and re-explanation of views the reader knows.
- Replace a long paraphrase of an opponent with one precise sentence (or a short quotation).
- Every sentence should advance or clarify the argument; delete decoration.
- Tighten footnotes — discursive notes are where the word count quietly grows.
Anti-patterns
- Dense, clause-stacked sentences that hide the inference
- Formalism with no plain-language gloss (against Mind's stated expectation)
- Burying the thesis in qualifications before it is even stated
- Long block quotations left unanalyzed
- A term that shifts meaning mid-paper
Style execution 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: Rewrite the opening and transitions so the venue-level claim, evidence object, and contribution are visible before technical detail.
- 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
【Reads for a broad audience?】jargon glossed / formalism explained? [Y/N]
【Thesis clear early?】[Y/N]
【Argument-first prose?】connectives explicit? [Y/N]
【Within ~8,000 words?】[Y/N] — where to trim
【Quotations purposeful + analyzed?】[Y/N]
【Next】mind-citation-and-style
Supplementary resources
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Mind-Skills/skills/mind-writing-style/SKILL.md
1---2name: mind-writing-style3description: Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a Mind article so the argument is maximally clear to a broad philosophical readership within the ~8,000-word limit. Mind asks that even technical material be accompanied by informal exposition. Tightens sentences and clarity; it does not generate the argument (see mind-thesis-and-argument).4---567# Writing Style (mind-writing-style)89Mind prizes prose that makes a rigorous argument **easy to follow**. Authors are explicitly asked to10present arguments so they are **accessible to a broad readership among philosophers**, and where11technical material appears, to **accompany it with informal exposition**. This skill is about clarity12and economy at the sentence level — not about generating claims (that is `mind-thesis-and-argument`).1314## When to trigger1516- Drafting the introduction or doing a final clarity pass17- A reader said the prose is "dense," "hard to follow," or "only specialists can read it"18- A formal passage needs an informal gloss19- Over the word limit and needing to cut words without losing the argument2021## Write for a broad philosophical readership22231. **Plain, exact prose.** Short declarative sentences for the key moves. Say the claim, then support24 it. Avoid ornament that hides the inference.252. **Gloss every technicality.** When you introduce symbolism, a formal definition, or a term of art,26 immediately restate the point in ordinary language. A philosopher outside your subfield should27 follow the argument.283. **Argument-first sentences.** Lead with the claim, then the reason — not a wind-up that buries it.29 Make the logical connective explicit ("so," "because," "but," "therefore").304. **Define on first use; one term per concept.** Do not let a concept drift across two words, or one31 word cover two concepts (guards against the equivocation `mind-conceptual-analysis-and-method` flags).325. **Quote sparingly and purposefully.** Use a quotation to fix the target view precisely, not to fill33 space; analyze every quotation you include.3435## Mechanics3637- Prefer the active voice and concrete subjects; name who claims what.38- Numbered premises or labeled claims (P1, P2, …) aid the reader when the argument is intricate.39- Keep footnotes for genuine qualifications and sources, not for a parallel essay.40- One consistent citation style throughout (full conversion to MIND house style happens in41 `mind-citation-and-style`).4243## Fit the ~8,000-word limit4445- Cut hedging, throat-clearing, and re-explanation of views the reader knows.46- Replace a long paraphrase of an opponent with one precise sentence (or a short quotation).47- Every sentence should advance or clarify the argument; delete decoration.48- Tighten footnotes — discursive notes are where the word count quietly grows.4950## Anti-patterns5152- Dense, clause-stacked sentences that hide the inference53- Formalism with no plain-language gloss (against Mind's stated expectation)54- Burying the thesis in qualifications before it is even stated55- Long block quotations left unanalyzed56- A term that shifts meaning mid-paper575859## Style execution pass for Mind6061Use 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.6263- **Primary move:** Rewrite the opening and transitions so the venue-level claim, evidence object, and contribution are visible before technical detail.64- **Decision ledger:** return `claim / evidence / blocker / next edit` rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.65- **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.66- **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.6768## Output format6970```71【Reads for a broad audience?】jargon glossed / formalism explained? [Y/N]72【Thesis clear early?】[Y/N]73【Argument-first prose?】connectives explicit? [Y/N]74【Within ~8,000 words?】[Y/N] — where to trim75【Quotations purposeful + analyzed?】[Y/N]76【Next】mind-citation-and-style77```7879## Supplementary resources8081- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — typesetting (LaTeX `lineno`, Word) and reference managers82- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Mind's accessibility expectation and word limit8384---8586**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Mind-Skills/skills/mind-writing-style/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain