# Render > Write a study's brief and evidence documents, then enforce the brief's citation prohibition with the analyzer - Skill: `tony/render` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tony/render` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tony/render/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: tony (https://skillmd.com/u/tony) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tony/render --- # /scholar:render Stage 5. Write the two layers a reader actually meets: a brief they read start to finish, and the evidence they check it against. The analyzer ships at `../../references/term-metrics.py`; `` below is that path. User arguments: $ARGUMENTS ## The prohibition ``` THE BRIEF CARRIES NO CITATION, NO PERMALINK, AND NO BARE NUMBER ``` Where it wants one, it links into `evidence/`. This is what keeps the top layer readable: a brief with its appendices inlined is a report, and nobody reads it start to finish. The rule is enforced, not hoped for: ```console $ notes/ontology// --check-brief ``` Non-zero exit means the brief is not renderable yet. Fix the brief, not the checker. ## What the brief says Four movements, in prose, each linking to the evidence file that holds its support: 1. What the corpus is about, and where its vocabulary lives. 2. The type hierarchy, with each type's discriminator stated plainly. 3. The controlled vocabulary: the preferred terms, and the collisions that made them necessary. 4. What `contest` overturned, and what the kills revealed. Write it for a reader who was not present. They do not have the corpus open, they do not know the analyst, and they will judge the study by whether they can disagree with it. ## What the evidence documents hold `evidence/hierarchy.md` — the is-a claims, one citation each, with the discriminators. `evidence/vocabulary.md` — preferred and deprecated terms, and the disjointness constraints. `evidence/metrics.md` — every distributional claim with the command that produced it and the output it produced. `evidence/contested.md` — what `contest` judged, including the kills. `evidence/corrections.md` — created empty, written by `/scholar:revise`. ## Rules - Run the brief gate before reporting success. A study whose brief fails the gate is not rendered. - Refresh the evidence documents rather than appending; they describe the current state of the study, and `corrections.md` is where history lives. - Every section of the brief links to the evidence file that supports it. - Do not restate an evidence document in the brief. If a paragraph would survive being replaced by a link, replace it. ## Output Open with a one-line hero (`✓ rendered : brief + evidence docs` or `⚠ Brief gate failed: findings`), then exactly these sections: 1. `## Brief` — the path, and the four movements in one line each. 2. `## Evidence` — each document written and what it holds. 3. `## Gate` — the brief check's output, verbatim. End with an `AskUserQuestion` panel offering next steps (for example: publish via gh, compare against another study, stop here) — skip the panel only in plan mode.