# Science Writing

> Draft, restructure, or plan Science/AAAS-family manuscript prose from author-provided claims, results, figures, notes, or Chinese drafts. Use when the user wants to write or rebuild a title, abstract, introduction, Results narrative, Discussion, significance paragraph, full outline, or claim-evidence argument for Science, Science Advances, Science Robotics, Science Translational Medicine, or rela…

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-shikaijieskj-science-skills-science-writing`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [shikaijieskj](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/shikaijieskj)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [shikaijieskj](https://github.com/shikaijieskj)
- **Source:** https://github.com/shikaijieskj/science-skills/tree/main/skills/science-writing

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-shikaijieskj-science-skills-science-writing
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Science Writing

Use this skill to build manuscript argument before sentence polish. Science-family writing
must make a broad reader care, then make a specialist trust the evidence.

## Core stance

- Author evidence comes first. Do not invent results, sample sizes, mechanisms, novelty,
  statistics, references, datasets, code, ethics approvals, or limitations.
- Make the advance legible to a reader outside the narrow subfield.
- Use broad significance only when it is anchored to specific evidence.
- Prefer decisive, bounded claims over inflated novelty.
- If a required input is missing, draft a scaffold with placeholders and flag the gap.

## Open extra files

| File | Open when |
|---|---|
| [references/article-architecture.md](references/article-architecture.md) | Need section-level argument order, article-type routing, or full-outline structure |
| [references/abstract-introduction-results.md](references/abstract-introduction-results.md) | Drafting or revising abstracts, introductions, Results openings, or Discussion arcs |
| [references/science-corpus-observations.md](references/science-corpus-observations.md) | Need article-sample observations, title patterns, or Science-family style heuristics |
| [references/chinese-author-workflow.md](references/chinese-author-workflow.md) | User provides Chinese notes, mixed Chinese-English lab notes, or asks for Chinese explanation |

## Intake

Before drafting, identify:

- target journal and article type, if known
- paper type: discovery, mechanism, method, resource, clinical, translational, robotics,
  materials, computational, policy, or interdisciplinary
- central advance: what is newly shown, built, measured, or explained
- evidence: figures, tables, controls, comparisons, datasets, experiments, statistics
- audience bridge: why a broad Science reader should care
- boundary: where the claim stops

If `central advance`, `evidence`, or `boundary` is absent, expose the gap before writing.

## Workflow

1. Write a one-sentence argument:
   `In [system/problem], we show [advance] using [approach], supported by [evidence], with [boundary].`
2. Choose a section architecture from `references/article-architecture.md`.
3. Build a claim-evidence map before prose:
   `Claim | Evidence | Figure/table/source | Boundary | Confidence`.
4. Draft from the evidence outward. Keep the strongest result near the central claim.
5. Calibrate verbs: `show`, `demonstrate`, `reveal`, `enable`, `suggest`, `indicate`,
   `may`, `could`.
6. Remove unsupported "first", "novel", "universal", "transformative", and "paradigm"
   claims unless the user provided evidence.
7. Check that the first paragraph answers: relevance, gap, and why now.
8. Return the draft plus assumptions, missing inputs, and the claim-evidence map.

## Section defaults

### Title

Prefer concrete titles:

`object/system + mechanism/capability + consequence or setting`

Good title jobs:

- name the scientific object
- signal the advance
- avoid grant-style aims and slogans
- remain searchable

### Abstract

Default pattern:

`broad context -> unresolved gap -> approach -> decisive result -> implication -> boundary`

For methods, AI, and robotics:

`task bottleneck -> design principle -> system/method -> fair comparison -> capability -> boundary`

For translational studies:

`clinical problem -> biological or technical gap -> model/cohort/intervention -> primary finding -> translational meaning -> limitation`

### Introduction

Use an hourglass:

`field-scale relevance -> specific bottleneck -> what prior work cannot resolve -> this study's move -> preview of evidence`

Do not turn the final paragraph into a mini-Results section. State what the paper does and why
that resolves the gap.

### Results

Use an evidence ladder:

`system/workflow -> validation -> main result -> comparison/control -> mechanism/diagnostic analysis -> generalization/application`

Each subsection should open with a claim and then prove it.

### Discussion

Use:

`central advance -> interpretation -> relation to prior work -> constraints -> future use`

Do not re-list every figure. Translate the evidence into meaning and boundary.

## Output format

Default:

1. `Draft:` with the requested prose.
2. `Claim-evidence map:` for major claims.
3. `Structure notes:` with the section logic.
4. `Assumptions / missing inputs:` with only material issues.

For Chinese author notes, provide polished English first, then brief Chinese notes explaining
major structural choices and unresolved author decisions.

## Source & license

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

- **Author:** [shikaijieskj](https://github.com/shikaijieskj)
- **Source:** [shikaijieskj/science-skills](https://github.com/shikaijieskj/science-skills)
- **License:** MIT

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

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-shikaijieskj-science-skills-science-writing
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/shikaijieskj
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.