Diagnose academic-writing conventions in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Checks the Achievement/Contribution statement (placement, type among 4 — method / results / impact / application), limitations writing, future-work conventions, citation density and function, and the use
Coding
discussion-vocabulary-diagnosis
Try itDiagnose vocabulary in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Checks (1) use of academic register and high-frequency academic expressions from the 5 functional categories in *Science Research Writing* 4.4.2, (2) appropriate modal verb usage across the 6 categories in 4.5, and (3) av
What it does
Diagnose vocabulary in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Checks (1) use of academic register and high-frequency academic expressions from the 5 functional categories in *Science Research Writing* 4.4.2, (2) appropriate modal verb usage across the 6 categories in 4.5, and (3) avoidance of colloquialisms. Triggers on "check vocabulary", "academic expressions", "hedge check", "modal verb check", "Discussion 词汇", "Discussion 用语", "讨论 学术表达", etc. Does NOT generate or rewrite prose.
The skill document
Discussion Vocabulary Diagnosis
Theory basis
Science Research Writing Unit 4.4 (Useful Words and Phrases) — categorised into 5 functional groups — and Unit 4.5 (Modal Verbs) — 6 categories of modality.
5 functional categories (from 4.4.2)
- Map to literature / knowledge — positioning phrases (consistent with, in contrast to, comparable to, in line with, distinct from, contrary to...) and verbs (confirm, contradict, extend, complement, challenge, support, refute, substantiate, resemble...)
- Refine / explore implications — hedging (plausible, potential, tentative; postulate, hypothesise, speculate, theorise; it is conceivable that..., we cannot rule out..., this is reinforced by...)
- Achievement / contribution — "happy words" (accurate, novel, effective, robust, significant, valuable, valid) and "!-substitutes" / "very happy words" (compelling, crucial, remarkable, striking, unprecedented, vital)
- Current and future work — (currently, at present, promising, worthwhile, urgent; further work is needed, future studies should, we recommend, would be of interest)
- Applications / use / applicability — (to apply, to enable, to implement, to generalise, to lead to, to realise, to utilise; applicable, feasible, suitable, viable, practicable)
6 modal-verb categories (from 4.5)
- Able — can / could / be able to (and perfect forms)
- Possible / optional — may / might / could (and perfect forms)
- Expected / likely / probable — should / ought to
- Obvious / impossible — must / cannot (and perfect forms)
- Advisable / recommended — should
- Necessary / essential — must / need to / have to
⚠️ The same form can carry different meanings (e.g., "should" = expected OR advisable; "can" = able OR possible). Context disambiguates.
What this skill diagnoses
- Use of high-frequency academic expressions — does the writer use the right phrase for each function (map / hedge / contribute / future / apply)?
- Modal verb appropriateness — is the modal matched to the intended epistemic stance?
- Colloquialism avoidance — is the register academic throughout (no "a lot of", "we think", "kids", etc.)?
- Terminology consistency — same concept named with the same term throughout?
- Discipline-specific lexis — does the vocabulary match psychology conventions (e.g., "participants" not "subjects" in modern usage, "self-report" not "survey answers")?
Diagnostic signals
| Signal | Means |
|---|---|
| "A lot of studies have shown..." | Colloquial — replace with "A substantial number of studies..." or "Many studies..." |
| "We think that..." | Colloquial hedging — use "We propose / suggest / argue that..." |
| "Kids / subjects / patients" (when "participants" is the field norm) | Discipline-specific register issue |
| "Proved that..." (for a single study) | Overclaim — use "our results suggest / indicate / show that..." |
| "This may can cause..." | Modal stacking — "may" and "can" overlap; pick one |
| "Must" used to express possibility (when "may/might" is meant) | Modal category error — "must" = obvious, not possible |
| Same concept called "stress", "pressure", "strain" within one paragraph | Terminology inconsistency |
Output format
## Vocabulary Diagnosis
### Academic expression coverage (per 4.4.2 categories)
- Map to literature: [✓ / weak / ✗]
- Refine implications (hedging): [✓ / weak / ✗]
- Achievement/contribution language: [✓ / weak / ✗]
- Future work language: [✓ / weak / ✗]
- Applications language: [✓ / weak / ✗]
### Modal verb audit (per 4.5 categories)
- [list each modal found, with intended meaning, with whether it fits]
### Colloquialism hits
- [list with sentence_ref and suggested replacement]
### Terminology consistency
- [list any within-text drift]
### Top issues (severity: critical / major / minor)
1. ...
References (to be filled in Phase 2)
references/academic-vocabulary.md— the high-frequency academic expression list (extracted from 4.4.2)references/modal-verbs.md— the 6-category modal verb guide (extracted from 4.5)references/rubric.mdreferences/checklist.mdreferences/examples/
Related skills
Diagnose grammar in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Covers tense choice (Present Simple for permanent truths vs Past Simple for study-specific findings), subject-verb agreement, article usage, voice (active vs passive), and punctuation. Triggers on "check Discussion tense", "
Diagnose logical argumentation in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Checks argument chains (premise → evidence → conclusion), causal claims (does X cause Y, or correlate?), and the distinction between data, interpretation, and speculation. Triggers on "check logic", "argument c
用于诊断英文心理学论文 Results 部分的学术词汇与搭配质量，包括口语化表达识别、学术动词准确性、图表邀请语规范性、结果描述词恰当性、术语一致性和搭配自然度。本 Skill 是 Results 写作诊断总 Skill 的第 4 个子 Skill（成员 D），在 results-structure-diagnoser（A）、results-statistics-convention-checker（B）、results-tense-grammar-checker（C）之后执行。
Diagnose the structural completeness and move ordering of the Discussion section in an English psychology research paper. Checks whether the draft contains expected moves (revisit results, map to literature, identify applications, limitations, future work, achievement/contribution statement) and whe
Academic writing revision advisor for the Results section of psychology and STEMM research papers. Checks claim-hedging alignment, causal language appropriateness, statistical reporting completeness, and interpretation boundaries. Triggers when the user asks to review, revise, or check a Results section draft, or mentions hedging, claim strength, overclaiming, or causal language in academic writing.