From mind-skills
Positions a Mind article against the existing philosophical literature so the thesis reads as a genuine move in a live debate. Useful when drafting introductions, avoiding strawman attacks, or distinguishing a thesis from closest competitors.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/mind-skills:mind-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
A Mind paper earns its place by making a **move in an ongoing debate**. Positioning is not
A Mind paper earns its place by making a move in an ongoing debate. Positioning is not throat-clearing — it shows the reader (and the referee) the exact disagreement you enter and why your thesis matters. Mind referees are specialists; engaging a weak or dated version of your target view is the fastest route to rejection.
| If your thesis is in… | also engage… |
|---|---|
| a narrow technical debate | the broader question it bears on, so a generalist sees the stakes |
| philosophy of language/logic | the metaphysical or epistemic upshot, where relevant |
| philosophy of mind | the empirical-adjacent work only as it bears on the philosophical claim |
| history of philosophy | the contemporary debate the reading illuminates, where applicable |
mind-submission)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.
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.【Debate】the live disagreement / puzzle you enter
【Key works】the 3–6 that define it (canonical + strongest current)
【Target view】the best version of what you oppose
【Gap】what is conflated / assumed / unexplained
【Move】how your thesis changes the debate
【Closest competitor】and how yours differs
【Next】mind-thesis-and-argument
../../resources/external_tools.md — PhilPapers, SEP, JSTOR for finding the defining works../../resources/official-source-map.md — Mind scope and quality-only criterionnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin mind-skillsHelps determine whether a philosophy project fits Mind journal and which content type (article, discussion, book review, critical notice) to target, based on significance, defensibility, and scope.
Evaluates whether an analytic philosophy manuscript fits Mind journal, covering topic scope, argument-rigor bar, and desk-reject heuristics.
Positions a Critical Inquiry essay within the interdisciplinary debates it enters across arts and humanities, naming the theoretical conversations and the precise intervention point.