nsfc-benzi-audit git:20260912.6a0c627A

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/de6aa529cffa2aa7.

---
name: nsfc-benzi-audit
description: Use for applicant-facing diagnosis or re-audit of a Chinese NSFC (国自然) application draft — 本子把脉、申请书修改建议、标书逻辑诊断、对照已中本子、科学问题凝练、代表作支撑、选题撞题核查 or 申请代码检查. Accepts PDF/DOCX/Markdown/text and checks title, rationale, research contents, innovation, feasibility and cross-section consistency. For 青年/面上/地区 and related project types, calibrate to the application year and form. Does not write applications from scratch or provide formal expert-review opinions.
license: MIT; see LICENSE
---

# NSFC Benzi Audit

Produce applicant-facing diagnosis and revision advice grounded in the supplied draft. Expose substantive logic breaks, weak evidence and high-impact fixes. Do not fabricate literature, results, project histories, budgets or official requirements.

This workflow gives applicant revision advice. If the user requests formal communication review, identify that separate scope and use a suitable review skill only if available. No companion skill is required for draft-internal diagnosis.

## Workflow

1. Select the source and establish the review scope.
   - Prioritize the source and revision explicitly identified by the user. Separate target drafts, funded examples, old reports, templates and notes. Never select a draft merely because it is the largest Markdown file or named `full.md`/`output.md`.
   - Reuse extracted text only after matching its title, revision and contents to the selected original. Record source path/version and extraction provenance. If multiple plausible drafts cannot be distinguished, ask which one to use.
   - For PDF/DOCX, use available extraction/OCR tools and preserve headings and tables. If extraction is unavailable, state the limitation and work on readable supplied material; do not invent a tool or require a named companion skill.
   - Inspect original figures when judging visual logic or evidence, including preliminary results. Converted mermaid/OCR is not authoritative. Missing extraction is a material gap, not proof that the applicant omitted content.
   - Record application year, exact project category (including 青年 A/B/C where known), form version/source, funding mode (包干制/预算制/待确认), research attribute, application code and source completeness. Keep historical-example years separate from the target year.
   - Use questions, goals and methods as analytical dimensions wherever they occur. Require separate headings only when the applicable form requires them. If year or form is unknown, continue content diagnosis and mark rule applicability unresolved.
   - For a quick pass, focus on title, abstract, scientific questions, contents, innovation and basis. For full diagnosis, cover all supplied sections. Do not report absent attachments or omitted excerpts as confirmed defects in the original application.

2. Load the relevant references.
   - Always read `references/benzi-logic.md` for logic diagnosis and writing advice.
   - Read `references/current-rules.md` before judging form, year/category compliance, research attributes, application codes, budgets, ethics or integrity requirements. It contains a dated 2026 baseline; verify rules for the target year and stage.
   - Read `references/audit-surfaces.md` for full diagnosis, figures, validation, annual plans, outcomes, budgets, literature or form checks.
   - Read `references/question-distillation.md` for question-source and distillation quality, or claims of 原创/独辟蹊径/瓶颈/交叉/跨域类比. Treat exemplary argument patterns as contextual tests, not mandatory headings or universal proof prerequisites.
   - Read `references/representative-works.md` when the draft lists representative works or relies on publications. Prefer supplied PDFs, then available DOI/publisher/preprint lookup tools. `paper-lookup` is an optional integration if installed. Distinguish bibliographic verification, abstract access and full-method verification; mark remaining evidence 未核实.
   - Read `references/kd-lookup.md` for topic collision, code calibration, output comparisons or applicant-requested self-overlap checks. The applicant runs portal queries; never automate login or captcha. Record module, query, year fields, date, error/zero-hit status and counts before making coverage claims.
   - Read `references/exemplar-learning.md` for funded/successful examples or improvement from sample applications. Use matched contexts, anonymized patterns and transferability limits; do not copy facts or distinctive wording into the target.
   - Read `references/information-communication.md` for information science, communications, networks, applied AI, security, quantum communication or related information engineering.
   - Read `references/geospatial-remote-sensing.md` for remote sensing, GIS, SAR/InSAR, optical/hyperspectral imagery, DEM/terrain, point clouds, spatial databases/graphs, trajectories, video GIS or city 3D models.
   - Read `references/medical-biomedical.md` for medicine, cohorts/specimens, disease mechanisms, cell/animal/organoid models, biomarkers, interventions, ethics or biosafety.
   - Use `assets/report-template.md` as an adaptable report shape unless the user requests another format.

3. Build the logic and evidence maps.
   - Extract object/scenario, problem/goal, method/path, innovation, validation and expected significance; track them across title, abstract, rationale, contents, objectives, questions, route and basis.
   - Include the actual research attribute and any historical scientific-question statement when relevant, without mixing their form versions.
   - Build a many-to-many question–content–objective–validation map. Report uncovered questions or tasks with no explained scientific role, not unequal item counts. Supporting methods and validation tasks can share a question.
   - Distinguish the source of a question (literature, theory, observation, own work, demand) from the applicant's capacity to study it. Assess personal contribution, available resources and preliminary evidence in field-appropriate forms; no universal first-author SCI or pre-experiment threshold.

4. Recheck prior findings when a prior report/list is supplied in files or chat.
   - First match it to the same application. Check every earlier 必改 item against both the new text and the applicable evidence/rule, then diagnose the current draft normally.
   - Use 已解决 / 部分落实 / 仍存在 / 改动无效 / 原意见撤销或不再适用 / 材料不足无法判断. Explain withdrawals, changed scope and incomplete evidence. Do not silently drop old items or preserve an incorrect finding merely because an earlier report said it.

5. Diagnose by impact and give concrete actions.
   - Assess novelty, route, applicant contribution and resources. These are diagnosis dimensions, not fixed scoring weights or funding predictions.
   - High priority: substantive unanswered questions, unsupported innovation, broken coverage, infeasible critical steps or verified material rule violations.
   - Medium priority: section-level argument or evidence gaps. Low priority: presentation preferences and local expression. Item counts, heading style and figure counts alone do not justify a substantive defect.
   - For each major finding cite the supplied location/short phrase, explain its consequence and give an actionable fix. Separate verified official requirements, logic/evidence risks and optional presentation suggestions.
   - Use fact-conditional revision skeletons with placeholders, not invented results or ready-made application claims. Label proposed expressions for applicant verification.

6. Write the report and preserve its evidence trail.
   - Default filename: `本子诊断报告.md` next to the selected draft; otherwise answer in chat. Before replacing an existing report, preserve it under a unique dated/revision filename and record which prior report was compared.
   - Include scope, overall assessment, maps, prioritized actions, prior-item recheck when applicable, section findings and requested rewrites. For full diagnosis include relevant supplementary surfaces, applicable field checks and the consistency matrix.
   - Populate optional sections only when relevant. Record 已核查 / 部分核查 / 未核查 / 不适用 per surface, with evidence scope, sources and dates. Generate limitations from actual work rather than copying blanket disclaimers.
   - Write in simplified Chinese unless asked otherwise. Keep advice applicant-facing, quote only short supporting phrases, and separate 必改 from 可润色.