Science Polishing

Science Polishing

Use this skill to improve prose without hiding weak logic. Fix argument first, then style.

Default stance

• Preserve the author's evidence and intended meaning.
• Do not invent data, citations, novelty, mechanism, ethics approvals, or journal acceptance claims.
• Prefer concise, concrete sentences over ornate academic phrasing.
• Make broad significance specific and testable.
• Convert vague Chinese academic phrases into evidence-linked English.
• Avoid em dashes by default; use commas, parentheses, or full stops unless the user asks otherwise.

Open extra files

| File | Open when | |---|---| | [references/style-guardrails.md](references/style-guardrails.md) | Need sentence-level Science-family style, mechanics, overclaim checks, or title guardrails | | [references/section-moves.md](references/section-moves.md) | Polishing a specific section: abstract, introduction, Results, Discussion, methods, or cover letter | | [references/phrase-patterns.md](references/phrase-patterns.md) | Need reusable phrase families for gap, evidence, contrast, limitation, or implication |

Editing workflow

1. Diagnose the main problem:

argument, section job, claim-evidence mismatch, paragraph flow, or sentence clutter.

1. Reverse-outline the paragraph in one line: this paragraph says [message].
2. Check whether each claim has evidence or a boundary.
3. Rewrite for Science-family sequence:

context/gap -> claim -> evidence -> implication/boundary.

1. Tighten sentences:

• subject and verb appear early
• one sentence carries one main action
• modifiers sit near the words they modify
• vague intensifiers are removed

1. Return a polished version plus a short note on substantive changes.

Style targets

• concrete nouns over abstract nominalizations
• active verbs when agency is known
• measured hedging where evidence is partial
• quantitative detail when supplied
• short signposting phrases only when they clarify logic
• no inflated claims such as revolutionary, unprecedented, or paradigm-shifting

Output format

Default:

Polished version
[text]

What changed
- [2-5 concise notes]

Risk flags
- [unsupported claim, missing evidence, ambiguous term, or "None"]

For Chinese source text, output polished English first, then a short Chinese note explaining any meaning-preserving structural changes.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: shikaijieskj
• Source: shikaijieskj/science-skills
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.