nature-polishing

name	nature-polishing
description	Polish, restructure, or translate academic prose into Nature-leaning English using writing-strategy principles, curated Nature/Nature Communications article patterns, and phrase-level support from Academic Phrasebank. Use whenever the user asks to polish a manuscript paragraph, abstract, introduction, results, discussion, conclusion, title, methods section, or Chinese academic draft for publication-quality English.
version	6.0.0
author	Yuan1z skill, refactored into static/dynamic layers

Nature-Style Academic Polishing — Router

This skill is split into two layers:

• A static layer under static/ that holds versioned, reusable content fragments (core principles, paper-type playbooks, per-section guidance, language-specific rules, per-journal style).
• A dynamic layer (this file plus manifest.yaml) that detects the request's axes and loads only the fragments needed for the current job.

Do not try to apply the polishing logic from memory or from this router. Always load fragments from disk as described below.

Routing protocol

Follow these five steps every time the skill is invoked.

1. Load the manifest and the core layer

Read manifest.yaml. It declares the axes (paper_type, section, language, journal), the allowed values, and the file paths each value maps to.

Also read every file listed under always_load. These hold the default stance, failure-mode diagnosis, ethics, and output format that apply to every polish job.

2. Detect the axis values for this request

For each axis in the manifest, decide the value using the manifest's detect: hint and the user's input:

• paper_type — research / methods / hypothesis / algorithmic / review. Default: research.
• section — abstract / intro / results / discussion / conclusion / title / methods. May be multiple. Ask the user if it is ambiguous and matters for the polish.
• language — en or zh-to-en. Detect from the draft itself.
• journal — nature / nat-comms / generic. Default: generic. If the user names a Nature subjournal, treat it as nature.

State the detected axis values in one short line to the user before proceeding, so they can correct you cheaply.

3. Load the matching fragments

For each axis value, Read the file mapped in the manifest. Skip the section axis only if the user has supplied free-floating prose with no section context.

Do not read every fragment in static/. Load only what step 2 selected.

4. Polish using the loaded material

Apply the loaded fragments in this priority order, matching the paper type -> section job -> paragraph logic -> claim/evidence/boundary -> sentence polish rule from core/failure-modes.md:

1. Paper-type playbook (architecture, writing order).
2. Section-specific job and failure modes.
3. Journal-specific framing and constraints.
4. Language-specific sentence and paragraph rules (apply last).
5. Core stance and ethics throughout.

If a paragraph's structural problem cannot be fixed without inventing content, flag it instead of papering over it.

5. Reach for references only when needed

The files under references/ are deep references, not defaults. Open them on demand per the references.on_demand table in the manifest, for example when the user explicitly asks for phrasebank-style alternatives or a stricter style audit.

Why this split

• The static layer is versioned and reviewable. Adding a new journal style or paper type is one new file plus one manifest line.
• The dynamic layer keeps each invocation cheap: only the fragments relevant to this draft enter context, instead of the full 1000-line monolith.
• The router itself is short on purpose. Update fragments, not this file, when adding scope.