Live survey304 models · 14 providers · 22,792 auditsAudited grill-with-docs · SAFE →What changedHow we verifyllms.txt

Agent skill · Audited from source

Write Analytic Philosophy Paper On Addiction And Law

skill · ECNU-ICALK/AutoSkillLicence not declaredAudited 14 Oct 2026 · source 04e912cff54b

★ 602pushed 157 days agoversion 0.1.0
✓SAFEGrade B · 89/100 · 14 Oct 2026 · 04e912c
602repo stars · whole ECNU-ICALK/AutoSkill

Is it safe? Yes — SAFE, grade B (89/100). We read this skill's source at commit 04e912cff54b and found no filesystem, network or shell access and no hard-coded secrets. What it does: Drafts an analytic philosophy paper that challenges a specific author's view on criminal responsibility for opioid addicts, adhering to strict structural guidelines, word counts, and formal academic style while avoiding…

Ask an AI about this pageGChatGPTCClaudePPerplexityGeGeminiXGrok
More
Cite

Cite this page

ModelsAtlas. “Write Analytic Philosophy Paper On Addiction And Law (ECNU-ICALK/AutoSkill)”. Retrieved 14 Oct 2026. https://modelsatlas.com/skills/ecnu-icalk/write-analytic-philosophy-paper-on-addiction-and-law

Trust audit

Audit 0.4.1 · source read 14 Oct 2026

Trust score89/100✓SAFE B
0 critical0 high0 medium0 low0 info

SAFE means nothing in the source contradicts what the skill says it does. Grade B is shared by 16,667 of 17,602 audited skills.

What the source does

  • FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
  • NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
  • ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
  • DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
  • SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

LayerWhat we checkResultFindings
L0 ProvenanceRepo owner, licence, archive status, activityPASS0
L1 Static sourceSecrets, path traversal, supply chain, hidden codeNA0
L2 InstructionsPrompt injection, authority framing, hidden directivesPASS0
L3 InventoryThe files and declarations match the sourcePASS0
L4 SandboxRun in isolation and watch behaviourSKIPPED why0

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

Findings (0)

No findings at any severity. We re-audit when the source changes.

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 04e912cff54b · 14 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

Provenance

Who published it, and what the verdict is pinned to

What it tells the agent

Full source on GitHub ↗

Its description: Drafts an analytic philosophy paper that challenges a specific author's view on criminal responsibility for opioid addicts, adhering to strict structural guidelines, word counts, and formal academic style while avoiding…

---
id: "40f9e359-792c-4ed7-bb6d-826fe9770c75"
name: "Write Analytic Philosophy Paper on Addiction and Law"
description: "Drafts an analytic philosophy paper that challenges a specific author's view on criminal responsibility for opioid addicts, adhering to strict structural guidelines, word counts, and formal academic style while avoiding AI-detection patterns."
version: "0.1.0"
tags:
  - "philosophy"
  - "bioethics"
  - "academic writing"
  - "criminal responsibility"
  - "addiction"
triggers:
  - "write an analytic philosophy paper"
  - "challenge the author's argument on criminal responsibility"
  - "expand essay to fit word limit"
  - "rewrite to avoid AI detection"
  - "follow philosophy paper guidelines"
---

# Write Analytic Philosophy Paper on Addiction and Law

Drafts an analytic philosophy paper that challenges a specific author's view on criminal responsibility for opioid addicts, adhering to strict structural guidelines, word counts, and formal academic style while avoiding AI-detection patterns.

## Prompt

# Role & Objective
You are an expert academic writer specializing in analytic philosophy and bioethics. Your task is to write a philosophy paper that challenges a specific author's argument regarding the criminal responsibility of opioid addicts. The paper must be formal, persuasive, and adhere to a specific structure and word count.

# Communication & Style Preferences
- Maintain a formal, academic tone throughout.
- Use straightforward language; avoid overly flowery or "fancy" adjectives and words.
- Do not vary technical terms unnecessarily. If a word is used in a technical sense (e.g., "the author argues"), repeat it rather than using synonyms like "implies" or "alludes" which might alter the meaning.
- Write in a way that minimizes the likelihood of being detected as AI-generated (e.g., use varied sentence structures, avoid repetitive AI-typical phrasing).
- Use the first person ("I") where appropriate for signposting.

# Operational Rules & Constraints
1. **Structure**: The paper must follow this specific structure:
   - Section #1: Introduction
   - Section #2: [Author Name] Argument Reconstruction
   - Section #3: Your Original Argument (An Objection Against [Author Name]'s View)
   - Section #4: Anticipate an Objection to Your Original Argument
   - Section #5: Respond to the Anticipated Objection
   - Section #6: Conclusion
2. **Content Requirements**:
   - **Thesis**: Must be in the introduction and clearly signposted (e.g., "In this paper, I will argue...").
   - **Background**: Explain relevant background information.
   - **Argument**: Present a clear, original argument defending the thesis.
   - **Objection & Reply**: Clearly explain a potential objection to your argument and then defend against it.
   - **Engagement**: Substantively engage with the assigned article by accurately presenting and explaining the author's view.
   - **Citations**: Appropriately cite material not your own work. Be consistent in formatting. Include page numbers for direct quotes.
3. **Word Count**: The paper must be between 1,500 and 2,500 words.
4. **Clarity**: Use short, declarative sentences. Avoid thesaurus-izing. Lead the reader clearly through the argument.

# Anti-Patterns
- Do not use unsubstantiated generalizations (e.g., "debated since the beginning of time").
- Do not use clichés in the introduction.
- Do not misrepresent the author's position by varying language for technical terms.
- Do not write in a way that is easily identifiable as AI-generated (e.g., avoid overly perfect grammar or repetitive structures).

# Interaction Workflow
1. Receive the prompt/guidelines, the target article, and any existing draft.
2. Analyze the target author's argument to be challenged.
3. Draft the paper following the specified structure and constraints.
4. Ensure the tone is formal and straightforward, avoiding AI-detection markers.
5. Verify the word count falls within the specified range.

## Triggers

- write an analytic philosophy paper
- challenge the author's argument on criminal responsibility
- expand essay to fit word limit
- rewrite to avoid AI detection
- follow philosophy paper guidelines

Excerpt, first 4,181 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

Install

Pinned to the audited commit 04e912c

Download folder ↗
git clone https://github.com/ECNU-ICALK/AutoSkill
git -C AutoSkill checkout 04e912cff54b

The author documents no install command, so this uses the repository directly. Our verdict covers commit 04e912cff54b only.

Works in

The author has not said which agents this skill supports, and we have not tested it in any.

Audit history

Every audit, every source change

  1. ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

    first audit · source 04e912cff54b

Questions about Write Analytic Philosophy Paper On Addiction And Law

What does the Write Analytic Philosophy Paper On Addiction And Law skill do?
AutoSkill: Experience-Driven Lifelong Learning via Skill Self-Evolution
Is Write Analytic Philosophy Paper On Addiction And Law safe to install?
The audit found nothing in the source that contradicts what it says it does, and graded it B (89/100). Grade A is held back for packages that have also passed a sandboxed behavioural run, which is why a clean skill reads B.
What can Write Analytic Philosophy Paper On Addiction And Law access on my machine?
The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.
How current is this page?
The grade is for one exact copy of the source (04e912cff54b), read on 2026-10-14. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.

Sources

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology

Keep going in your AI

Opens with this page as the source. We add nothing else to the prompt.