academic-writing-skills

name: academic-writing-skills description: End-to-end academic manuscript workflow for drafting, revision, reviewer response, figure-text consistency, claim-evidence audits, and pre-submission checks. Use this skill whenever a user asks for manuscript sections, paper revision, rebuttal letters, journal compliance, overclaim detection, GPT-style prose cleanup, figure captions, or evidence-backed academic writing. It is especially useful for multi-section papers where context, claims, figures, and reviewer comments must stay consistent across revisions. When .paper/claims.yml and .paper/figures.yml exist (produced by the paper-memory-builder skill), use them as ground truth instead of re-reading the manuscript; if they are absent and the task is multi-section / claim-evidence / reviewer-response work, suggest running paper-memory-builder first to build the memory layer.

Academic Writing Skills

Field-agnostic workflow for rigorous academic paper writing, revision, rebuttal, and submission preparation.

The skill is intentionally general. Journal-specific rules, advisor preferences, paper terminology, evidence maps, and figure inventories belong in each paper repository under .paper/.

When To Use

Use this skill for:

• Drafting or revising Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, cover letter, or reviewer response.
• Auditing overclaim, GPT-style prose, vague mechanism language, or unsupported conclusions.
• Checking whether claims are backed by figures, tables, statistics, code output, or cited literature.
• Verifying figure captions, panel references, numerical consistency, and figure-text coupling.
• Preparing a paper for journal submission or resubmission.
• Compressing paper context so future LLM sessions do not reread the whole manuscript repeatedly.

Do not use this skill for generic literature workspace management, Zotero CRUD, Obsidian vault setup, NotebookLM source curation, or coding tasks. Those belong to separate research-workspace or coding-agent skills.

Required Workflow

Before producing substantive manuscript prose, follow this sequence.

1. Classify The Task

Identify the requested artifact:

• New prose: section draft, paragraph rewrite, abstract, cover letter.
• Diagnostic audit: overclaim, banned words, claim-evidence, figure consistency.
• Revision: advisor comments, reviewer comments, response table.
• Submission: journal checklist, declarations, file inventory.
• Context compression: .paper/ packet or paper memory update.

For small copyediting tasks, use the fast path in Step 3 and avoid asking for unneeded setup.

2. Locate The Paper Repository

Use the current working directory unless the user gives another path. Look for:

<paper-repo>/
  .paper/
    journal_format.md
    style_overrides.md
    context.md
    figure_inventory.md
    claim_evidence_ledger.md
    reviewer_comments.md
    submissions_log.md

If .paper/ does not exist and the task is multi-section, submission-facing, or reviewer-facing, offer to create a minimal paper context packet using references/paper_context_packet.md.

3. Confirm Journal Format

Look for <paper-repo>/.paper/journal_format.md.

• If present, load it and apply its word limits, citation style, section order, figure specs, declarations, and submission rules.
• If missing and the task is format-sensitive, stop and ask for the target journal. Use references/journal_format_template.md to create the file.
• If missing and the task is small, proceed without journal setup and state that journal compliance was not checked.

Format-sensitive tasks include abstract word limits, cover letters, section order, figure-count audits, declarations, reviewer suggestions, and submission preparation.

4. Load Paper-Specific Overrides

If <paper-repo>/.paper/style_overrides.md exists, apply it after the universal rules. It can override banned terms, allowed terms, terminology preferences, figure conventions, and advisor-specific instructions.

If <paper-repo>/.paper/context.md exists, use it as the preferred compressed source of paper context before reading the full manuscript.

If <paper-repo>/.paper/claims.yml or <paper-repo>/.paper/figures.yml exist (produced by the paper-memory-builder skill), prefer them over re-reading the manuscript when running claim-evidence audits, figure-text consistency checks, or banned-word audits — the YAML is the authoritative shared memory layer across writing sessions. Refresh the YAML via paper-memory-builder if the manuscript has changed since the YAML was last written.

If <paper-repo>/.paper/revision_history.yml exists, read it before answering "what changed since last submission" / "did I address reviewer N's comment" / "which figures have been touched in the last 2 rounds". The history is the audit trail; don't infer it from the current manuscript alone.

5. Load Universal Rules

Always load:

• references/writing_principles.md
• references/banned_words.md

These define findings-first structure, mechanism requirements, overclaim language, GPT-style vocabulary, causal-claim checks, and revision discipline.

6. Load Task-Specific References

Read only the relevant subsection when possible. The goal is to save context, not load every reference by default.

7. Produce The Artifact

Use the output structure that fits the task:

• For prose: revised text first, then a short audit note if useful.
• For audits: findings table, severity, evidence, recommended fix.
• For reviewer response: point-by-point table with comment, response, manuscript change, and evidence.
• For submission: checklist with pass, fail, unknown, and required action.
• For context compression: concise .paper/ files that future sessions can load instead of the full paper.

When revising existing text, change only what the task requires. Preserve the author's voice unless the sentence violates a rigor rule.

8. Self-Audit Before Showing The User

Before returning prose or an audit result, check:

1. Does every result state the finding before the figure citation?

2. Does every finding have a mechanism grounded in data, method, or literature?

3. Are overclaim verbs and vague intensifiers removed or hedged?

4. Numeric verifiability: re-grep every numeric token in Abstract, Results, and Conclusion. Each must trace to a row in .paper/claim_evidence_ledger.md (or to a figure annotation, table cell, code output, or citation visible to the reader). Numbers without a ledger row must be removed, hedged, or have evidence added per the disposition tree in references/claim_evidence_audit.md. Do not rely on memory across revisions — numbers drift silently when figures are regenerated or analyses re-run.

5. Are figure references panel-specific when panels exist?

6. Do reviewer responses point to a real manuscript change?

7. Does journal format override any default rule?

8. Does the prose use terminology a reviewer in the target field would recognise, or has CS / engineering / general-AI jargon slipped in from a method draft or software repository? See references/writing_principles.md §4.6 and .paper/style_overrides.md "Domain Vocabulary Swaps".

9. Are any noun-noun (or noun-noun-noun) compounds joined by hyphens invented for this paper rather than drawn from existing field vocabulary? Are semicolons and colons in body prose limited to at most one each per paragraph (citation lists and equation parentheticals excluded)? See references/writing_principles.md §4.4 and §4.7.

10. Claim-gap cross-reference: if <paper-repo>/.paper/claims.yml exists, map every assertive sentence in the produced prose or the audited text to a claim row, and flag any sentence that maps to a status: gap claim with [MATERIAL GAP].

    • claims.yml row schema (produced by the paper-memory-builder skill): each row has id (C1, C2, ...), text, and status — one of draft | supported | rejected | gap. A gap row also carries a one-line gap_reason. status: gap means the memory layer has recorded the claim as having no backing evidence artifact. If you have not loaded paper-memory-builder and the schema is unclear, treat any row whose status is literally gap as a material gap.
    • What counts as "assertive": sentences with a numeric claim, a definitive verb (shows, proves, confirms, establishes, exceeds, demonstrates), or an absolute comparative. Hedged sentences (suggests, is consistent with, may indicate) are not assertive and need no mapping.
    • This check is mandatory on overclaim audits, banned-word audits, and claim-evidence audits alike: a sentence can be linguistically clean (no banned words, no overclaim verbs) and still assert a status: gap claim. A clean-prose verdict never overrides a status: gap finding.
    • If .paper/claims.yml is absent and the task is a claim-evidence or overclaim audit, say so explicitly and suggest running paper-memory-builder first.

11. Humanize pass: scan for AI-tell structural patterns per references/writing_principles.md §5.5 (mechanical rule-of-three, negative parallelism, uniform sentence rhythm, formulaic signposts, hedge stacking, repeated paragraph openers). These are structural, not word choice, so a clean banned-word verdict does not clear them.

12. Summary-section terminology: every technical term in an Abstract or Conclusion already appears in Methods or Results per references/writing_principles.md §4.9. Flag any term, compound, or near-synonym the body never uses; fix the body's term first, then reuse it.

If any item fails, fix it before showing the user.

Paper Context Packet

Use .paper/ files to reduce repeated token use across sessions. A mature paper repository should contain:

.paper/
  journal_format.md
  style_overrides.md
  context.md
  figure_inventory.md
  claim_evidence_ledger.md
  reviewer_comments.md
  submissions_log.md

context.md, figure_inventory.md, and claim_evidence_ledger.md are the most important token-saving files. They let future agents understand the paper's research question, claims, figures, and evidence without rereading the full manuscript.

Core Principles

• Findings first, then mechanism.
• Claims must be traceable to evidence.
• Figure text, captions, and prose must agree.
• Journal rules override generic preferences.
• Paper-specific overrides beat skill defaults.
• Reviewer response is a change-management task, not a politeness exercise.
• Preserve scientific uncertainty; do not invent assumptions or results.
• Prefer concise, evidence-backed prose over generic academic polish.