formula-derivation

$npx mdskill add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/formula-derivation

Build an honest derivation package, not a fake polished theorem story.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/formula-derivationView on GitHub ↗
---
name: formula-derivation
description: Structures and derives research formulas when the user wants to 推导公式, build a theory line, organize assumptions, turn scattered equations into a coherent derivation, or rewrite theory notes into a paper-ready formula document. Use when the derivation target is not yet fully fixed, the main object still needs to be chosen, or the user needs a coherent derivation package rather than a finished theorem proof.
argument-hint: [problem-goal-current-formulas-or-notes]
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob
---

# Formula Derivation: Research Theory Line Construction

Build an honest derivation package, not a fake polished theorem story.

## Constants

- DEFAULT_DERIVATION_DOC = `DERIVATION_PACKAGE.md` in project root
- STATUS = `COHERENT AS STATED | COHERENT AFTER REFRAMING / EXTRA ASSUMPTION | NOT YET COHERENT`

## Context: $ARGUMENTS

## Goal

Produce exactly one of:
1. a coherent derivation package for the original target
2. a reframed derivation package with corrected object / assumptions / scope
3. a blocker report explaining why the current notes cannot yet support a coherent derivation

## Inputs

Extract and normalize:
- the target phenomenon, formula, relation, or theory line
- the intended role of the derivation:
  - exact identity / algebra
  - proposition / local theorem
  - approximation
  - mechanism interpretation
- explicit assumptions
- notation and definitions
- any user-provided formula chain, sketch, messy notes, or current draft
- nearby local theory files if the request points to them
- desired output style if specified:
  - internal alignment note
  - paper-style theory draft
  - blocker report

If the target, object, notation, or assumptions are ambiguous, state the exact interpretation you are using before deriving anything.

## Workflow

### Step 1: Gather Derivation Context
Determine the target derivation file with this priority:
1. a file path explicitly specified by the user
2. a derivation draft already referenced in local notes
3. `DERIVATION_PACKAGE.md` in project root as the default target

Read the relevant local context:
- the chosen target derivation file, if it already exists
- any local theory notes, formula drafts, appendix notes, or files explicitly mentioned by the user

Extract:
- target formula / theory goal
- current formula chain
- assumptions
- notation
- known blockers
- desired output mode

### Step 2: Freeze the Target
State explicitly:
- what is being explained, derived, or supported
- whether the immediate goal is:
  - identity / algebra
  - proposition
  - approximation
  - interpretation
- what the derivation is expected to output in the end

Do not start symbolic manipulation before this is fixed.

### Step 3: Choose the Invariant Object
Identify the single quantity or conceptual object that should organize the derivation.

Typical possibilities include:
- objective / utility / loss
- total cost / energy / welfare
- conserved quantity / state variable
- expected metric / effective rate / effective cost

If the current notes start from a narrower quantity, decide explicitly whether it is:
- the true top-level object
- a proxy
- a local slice
- an approximation

Do not let a convenient proxy silently replace the actual conceptual object.

### Step 4: Normalize Assumptions and Notation
Restate:
- all assumptions
- all symbols
- regime boundaries or special cases
- which quantities are fixed, adaptive, or state dependent

Identify:
- hidden assumptions
- undefined notation
- scope ambiguities
- whether the current formula chain already mixes exact steps with approximations

Preserve the user's original notation unless a cleanup is necessary for coherence.
If you adopt a cleaner internal formulation, keep that as a derivation device rather than silently replacing the user's target.

### Step 5: Classify the Derivation Steps
For every nontrivial step, determine whether it is:
- **identity**: exact algebraic reformulation
- **proposition**: a claim requiring conditions
- **approximation**: model simplification or surrogate
- **interpretation**: prose-level meaning of a formula

Never merge these categories without signaling the transition.
If one part is only interpretive, do not present it as if it were mathematically proved.

### Step 6: Build a Derivation Map
Choose a derivation strategy, for example:
- definition -> substitution -> simplification
- primitive law -> intermediate variable -> target expression
- global quantity -> perturbation -> decomposition
- exact model -> approximation -> interpretable closed form
- general dynamic object -> simplified slice -> local theorem -> return to general case

Then write a derivation map:
- target formula or theory line
- required intermediate identities or lemmas
- which assumptions each nontrivial step uses
- where approximations enter
- where special-case and general-case regimes diverge or collapse

If the derivation needs a decomposition, derive it from the chosen global quantity.
Do not make a split appear magically from one local variable itself.

### Step 7: Write the Derivation Document
Write to the chosen target derivation file.

If the target derivation file already exists:
- read it first
- update the relevant section
- do not blindly duplicate prior content

If the user does not specify a target, default to `DERIVATION_PACKAGE.md` in project root.

Do NOT write directly into paper sections or appendix `.tex` files unless the user explicitly asks for that target.

The derivation package must include:
- target
- status
- invariant object
- assumptions
- notation
- derivation strategy
- derivation map
- main derivation steps
- remarks / interpretations
- boundaries and non-claims

Writing rules:
- do not hide gaps with words like "clearly", "obviously", or "similarly"
- define every symbol before use
- mark approximations explicitly
- separate derivation body from remarks
- if the true object is dynamic or state dependent but a simpler slice is analyzed, say so explicitly
- if a formula line is only heuristic, label it honestly

### Step 8: Final Verification
Before finishing the target derivation file, verify:
- the target is explicit
- the invariant object is stable across the derivation
- every assumption used is stated
- each formula step is correctly labeled as identity / proposition / approximation / interpretation
- the derivation does not silently switch objects
- special cases and general cases still belong to one theory line
- boundaries and non-claims are stated

If the derivation still lacks a coherent object, stable assumptions, or an honest path from premises to result, downgrade the status and write a blocker report instead of forcing a clean story.

## Required File Structure

Write the target derivation file using this structure:

```md
# Derivation Package

## Target
[what is being derived or explained]

## Status
COHERENT AS STATED / COHERENT AFTER REFRAMING / NOT YET COHERENT

## Invariant Object
[top-level quantity organizing the derivation]

## Assumptions
- ...

## Notation
- ...

## Derivation Strategy
[chosen route and why]

## Derivation Map
1. Target depends on ...
2. Intermediate step A uses ...
3. Approximation enters at ...

## Main Derivation
Step 1. ...
Step 2. ...
...

## Remarks and Interpretation
- ...

## Boundaries and Non-Claims
- ...

## Open Risks
- ...
```

## Output Modes

### If the derivation is coherent as stated
Write the full structure above with a clean derivation package.

### If the notes are close but not coherent yet
Write:
- the exact mismatch
- the corrected invariant object, assumption, or scope
- the reframed derivation package

### If the derivation cannot be made coherent honestly
Write:
- `Status: NOT YET COHERENT`
- the exact blocker:
  - missing object
  - unstable assumptions
  - notation conflict
  - unsupported approximation
  - theorem-level claim without enough conditions
- what extra assumption, reframe, or intermediate derivation would be needed

## Relationship to `proof-writer`

Use `formula-derivation` when the user says things like:
- “我不知道怎么起这条推导主线”
- “这个公式到底该从哪个量出发”
- “帮我把理论搭顺”
- “把说明文档变成可写进论文的公式文档”
- “这几段公式之间逻辑不通”

Use `proof-writer` only after:
- the exact claim is fixed
- the assumptions are stable
- the notation is settled
- and the task is now to prove or refute that claim rigorously

## Chat Response

After writing the target derivation file, respond briefly with:
- status
- whether the target survived unchanged or had to be reframed
- what file was updated

## Key Rules

- Never fabricate a coherent derivation if the object, assumptions, or scope do not support one.
- Prefer reframing the derivation over overclaiming.
- Separate assumptions, identities, propositions, approximations, and interpretations.
- Keep one invariant object across special and general cases whenever possible.
- Treat simplified constant-parameter cases as analysis slices, not as the conceptual main object.
- If uncertainty remains, mark it explicitly in `Open Risks`; do not hide it in polished prose.
- Coherence matters more than elegance.

More from wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

SkillDescription
ablation-plannerUse when main results pass result-to-claim (claim_supported=yes or partial) and ablation studies are needed for paper submission. Codex designs ablations from a reviewer's perspective, CC reviews feasibility and implements.
alphaxivQuick single-paper lookup via AlphaXiv LLM-optimized summaries with tiered source fallback. Use when user says "explain this paper", "summarize paper", pastes an arXiv/AlphaXiv URL, or provides a bare arXiv ID for quick understanding - not for broad literature search.
analyze-resultsAnalyze ML experiment results, compute statistics, generate comparison tables and insights. Use when user says "analyze results", "compare", or needs to interpret experimental data.
auto-paper-improvement-loopAutonomously improve a generated paper via GPT-5.4 xhigh review → implement fixes → recompile, for 2 rounds. Use when user says \"改论文\", \"improve paper\", \"论文润色循环\", \"auto improve\", or wants to iteratively polish a generated paper.
auto-review-loopAutonomous multi-round research review loop. Repeatedly reviews via external reviewer backend (Codex or manual), implements fixes, and re-reviews until positive assessment or max rounds reached. Use when user says "auto review loop", "review until it passes", or wants autonomous iterative improvement.
auto-review-loop-llmAutonomous research review loop using any OpenAI-compatible LLM API. Configure via llm-chat MCP server or environment variables. Trigger with "auto review loop llm" or "llm review".
auto-review-loop-minimaxAutonomous multi-round research review loop using MiniMax API. Use when you want to use MiniMax instead of Codex MCP for external review. Trigger with "auto review loop minimax" or "minimax review".
citation-auditZero-context verification that every bibliographic entry in the paper is real, correctly attributed, and used in a context the cited paper actually supports. Uses a fresh cross-model reviewer with web/DBLP/arXiv lookup to catch hallucinated authors, wrong years, fabricated venues, version mismatches, and wrong-context citations (cite present but the cited paper does not establish the claim). Use when user says \"审查引用\", \"check citations\", \"citation audit\", \"verify references\", \"引用核对\", or before submission to ensure bibliography integrity.
claims-draftingDraft patent claims for an invention. Use when user says \"撰写权利要求\", \"draft claims\", \"写权利要求书\", \"claim drafting\", or wants to create patent claims. The core skill of the patent pipeline.
comm-lit-review-claude-singleCommunications-domain literature review with Claude-style knowledge-base-first retrieval. Use when the task is about communications, wireless, networking, satellite/NTN, Wi-Fi, cellular, transport protocols, congestion control, routing, scheduling, MAC/PHY, rate adaptation, channel estimation, beamforming, or communication-system research and the user wants papers, related work, a survey, or a landscape summary. Search Zotero, Obsidian, and local paper folders first when available, then search IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, and broader web in that order.