Run any Skill in Manus with one click

academic-writing

Stars0

Forks0

UpdatedJuly 11, 2026 at 15:20

Drafts, critiques, and cite-checks academic writing (thesis chapters, conference/journal papers) across two genre profiles — empirical-CS/paper and DSR/qualitative-thesis — with a genuinely adversarial multi-skeptic critique pass and Quarto/BibTeX-aware citation tooling. Use when drafting a section from bullet points, running a flow/reverse-outline check on a draft, running a hard-critic or red-team review pass on a chapter or paper, or validating/resolving citations and checking citation-key coverage. Do not use for README/user docs, general non-academic prose, or as a ghostwriter — it produces sourced skeletons and critique, not net-new prose, unless the calling context explicitly grants an exception.

Installation

Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.

Run Skill in Manus

Source

larsboes

larsboes/Axon

View GitHub Repository View Creator Repositories

Download

Run Skill in Manus

Related occupationsSOC

Based on SOC occupation classification

EditorsArts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations·SOC 27-3041

File Explorer

13 files

SKILL.md

readonly

More from this repository

same repository

cv-builder

larsboes/Axon

Builds a job-tailored CV PDF from a single profile-tagged master CV file, via the local `cv` CLI — pick the closest profile tag (or ask), pick a language, run the build, hand back the PDF path. Use when the user wants a CV/resume for a specific job application, role type, or language. Do not use for writing or editing CV content itself (that's the master file, edited by hand) or for any content-generation/AI-tailoring flow — this skill only filters and renders what's already in the master file.

2026-07-110

unslop-code

larsboes/Axon

Strips the tells that make source code read as AI-generated and forces code that fits the project instead of the model's default average. It does not write the code, and it has no preferred style. It removes the surface tells (leftover chat artifacts, placeholder comments, emoji, swallowed errors, narrating comments, generic placeholder names like process_data) AND surfaces the structural tells a linter passes: boilerplate / tutorial-shaped code, hallucinated APIs, over-engineering, and code that ignores the surrounding codebase. Grounded in a Reddit analysis of 11,906 posts and 11,306 comments across 55 AI, coding, and SaaS subreddits of what developers actually name as a giveaway. Use whenever writing, generating, reviewing, refactoring, or auditing code, and especially when the user wants it to not look AI-written or vibe-coded, says it "looks AI-generated," "reads like a tutorial," "is too generic," or "de-slop this." Trigger even if they never say "AI tell."

2026-07-100

unslop-text

larsboes/Axon

Strips the cues that make prose read as AI-generated and forces a deliberate human voice instead of the model's default register. It has no house style and does not draft prose. It removes the cited tells (the em dash, the "it's not just X, it's Y" cadence, assistant boilerplate, the delve/tapestry diction, listicle scaffolding, the "in conclusion" wrap-up) and warns against the over-corrected "trying not to sound like AI" register that swaps one default for another. Grounded in a Reddit analysis of 89,239 posts (7,984 on-topic) across roughly 50 AI, writing, and SaaS subreddits of what people name as a giveaway. Use when writing, drafting, editing, rewriting, reviewing, or auditing any prose for a reader (a post, email, essay, README, or marketing copy), and especially when the user wants it to sound human rather than AI, or says it "sounds like ChatGPT," "reads like AI," "is too polished," "de-slop this," or "make it sound like me." Trigger even if they never say "AI tell."

2026-07-100

unslop-ui

larsboes/Axon

Strips the cues that make a website read as AI-generated and forces a deliberate, project-specific design choice instead of the model's default. It does not impose a look or hand out taste. It removes tells (default shadcn/Tailwind, AI-purple gradients, gradient heading text, unprompted neon glow, emoji-as-icons, the centered hero plus three feature cards) AND the newer cream-plus-serif-plus-sage "tasteful default" that trading one default for another creates. Grounded in a 47-subreddit, 3.2M-post Reddit analysis of what people flag as AI slop. Use whenever building, styling, reviewing, refactoring, or auditing any website, landing page, web app UI, dashboard, or front-end component, especially when the user wants a site to look custom or human rather than AI-generated, or mentions AI slop, looks AI-made, generic, vibe-coded, Tailwind, or shadcn. Trigger even if they never say vibe-coded.

2026-07-100

writing-skills

larsboes/Axon

Authors, structures, and audits Claude agent skills (SKILL.md + scripts/references/assets) to Anthropic best-practices, the agentskills.io spec, and local Claude Code conventions. Use when creating a new skill, refactoring one for progressive disclosure, or auditing a skill's metadata/structure. Do not use for README/user docs, non-agentic library code, or MCP-server implementation — for a runbook-style domain skill, model it on a sibling under `.claude/skills/`.

2026-07-100

home-3d-printing

larsboes/Axon

Slices models and drives a home Klipper/Moonraker 3D printer via the local printctl CLI — slice with OrcaSlicer, upload, arm, start, monitor, pause/cancel, e-stop — with hard temperature caps and an arm-before-heat gate. Works with any Klipper/Moonraker printer; the specific model, material and caps come from config (run `printctl doctor`). Use when the user wants to 3D-print at home, slice an STL/3MF, or check/control the printer. Do not use for CAD/mesh modeling, cloud/non-local printers, or non-Klipper firmware.

2026-07-100

name	academic-writing
description	Drafts, critiques, and cite-checks academic writing (thesis chapters, conference/journal papers) across two genre profiles — empirical-CS/paper and DSR/qualitative-thesis — with a genuinely adversarial multi-skeptic critique pass and Quarto/BibTeX-aware citation tooling. Use when drafting a section from bullet points, running a flow/reverse-outline check on a draft, running a hard-critic or red-team review pass on a chapter or paper, or validating/resolving citations and checking citation-key coverage. Do not use for README/user docs, general non-academic prose, or as a ghostwriter — it produces sourced skeletons and critique, not net-new prose, unless the calling context explicitly grants an exception.
allowed-tools	Read, Write, Edit, Bash

Academic Writing

Adds academic-writing-specific judgment a general-purpose model doesn't have by default: which genre a document belongs to and what that implies structurally, a checkable flow diagnostic, a genuinely adversarial critique pass (most academic-writing tooling is structurally biased toward gentle "looks good with minor fixes" feedback), and working citation-resolution/validation tooling. Four workflows, one skill — they share triggers ("help with this paper/thesis") even though invocation phrasing differs per workflow.

Default posture: never ghostwrite. Every workflow below produces sourced skeletons, critique, and findings — not net-new prose — unless the calling context (a project's own CLAUDE.md/skill, or an explicit user instruction this session) grants an exception. This mirrors the discipline a rigorous thesis/paper process already requires: the author's own reasoning is the thing being examined, not the assistant's.

Genre profile — pick this first, every workflow depends on it

Before running any workflow, determine which genre profile the target document belongs to:

Empirical-CS / conference paper (has a method, baselines, ablations) → references/genre-empirical-cs.md
DSR / qualitative thesis (design contribution against a knowledge base, single-case study) → references/genre-dsr-qualitative.md

These are not interchangeable — see Gotchas. If genuinely unclear which applies, ask rather than guess; picking wrong produces confidently wrong-shaped output.

Workflow: Draft

Copy this checklist and track progress:

- [ ] Step 1: confirm genre profile + read the relevant genre reference
- [ ] Step 2: get the author's bullet points or messy draft (never invent them)
- [ ] Step 3: produce a sourced skeleton or a critique-then-example, per the no-ghostwriting posture

Step 1 — Orient. Read the genre-profile file (above) for the section being drafted (Abstract, Introduction, Method, Discussion, etc. — empirical-CS profile names these explicitly; DSR profile gives the generic Discussion shape and defers to the author's own confirmed chapter outline when one exists). Read references/house-style.md for prose-mechanics rules (B1–B8) to apply to any generated skeleton language.

Step 2 — Get material to work with. If the author has provided bullet points or a messy draft, work from that. If not, do not write the passage — produce a sourced skeleton instead: the claim each sentence must make, the citation key it needs, and the fact it stands on (see references/citation-workflows.md for the claim-evidence-map format this skeleton should follow).

Step 3 — Respond per the drafting workflow. If given a pre-text/messy draft: first state what's wrong with it (vague claims, missing evidence, structural gap against the genre profile), then show an improved version as an example, explaining the changes — not a silent rewrite. If given nothing to work from: hand back the sourced skeleton from Step 2 and stop; do not fill it in.

Workflow: FlowCheck

Copy this checklist and track progress:

- [ ] Step 1: reverse-outline the target section/chapter
- [ ] Step 2: apply the reader test to any topic sentence that didn't trace cleanly
- [ ] Step 3: check given-new sentence flow and rhythm variance
- [ ] Step 4: spot-check transitions against the function table
- [ ] Step 5: run scripts/scan-ai-tells.js for the mechanical rhythm/filler patterns
- [ ] Step 6: report paragraph-level findings, not a general verdict

Full procedure: references/flow-diagnostics.md (reverse-outlining, reader test, transitions, given-new/rhythm) and references/ai-cadence-tells.md (the seven sentence-rhythm AI tells — word-level filler is references/house-style.md B2/B7). Run reverse-outlining first — it's the highest-signal check and usually surfaces what the other techniques would find individually. Run node scripts/scan-ai-tells.js <file-or-dir> for the two mechanically-detectable rhythm patterns (em-dash interruption, semicolon splice) and the word-level filler list — treat its output as leads to verify, not confirmed findings (see Gotchas). Report findings as a list keyed to specific paragraphs/ topic sentences; a bare "flows well" / "doesn't flow" verdict isn't actionable and should be rejected before it's reported.

Workflow: CriticReview

Copy this checklist and track progress:

- [ ] Step 1: confirm genre profile, prefix every critic brief with it
- [ ] Step 2: dispatch the five lens-briefs in parallel
- [ ] Step 3: fix what they find (or hand findings back to the author, per no-ghostwriting)
- [ ] Step 4: run the adversarial pass on the revised draft, not the rough one
- [ ] Step 5: aggregate verdicts, surface any "fatal" immediately

Step 1–2. On Claude Code, dispatch the eight academic-writing-* subagents (5 lenses + 3 skeptics, shipped in this pack's ../../agents/, linked to ~/.claude/agents/academic-writing/) — they carry hard tool restrictions (Read/Grep/Glob only, Write/Edit actually blocked) that a prompt-only dispatch can't enforce. On any other harness, or if the native agents aren't linked, dispatch the five job-specific critique briefs in references/critic-briefs.md (technical, logic, consistency, bibliography, layout) as parallel general-purpose agent dispatches instead — not sequential, so findings aren't anchored on each other. Either way, prefix every brief/agent call with the genre-profile content so findings are calibrated correctly (a technical reviewer checking a DSR thesis for "missing ablations" is asking the wrong question).

Step 3. These five lenses find specific, scoped problems — surface them to the author for fixing (or apply, only under an explicit-exception grant per this skill's default posture above).

Step 4–5. Once the lens-brief findings are addressed, run the adversarial multi-skeptic pass — the three academic-writing-skeptic-* subagents on Claude Code, or references/adversarial-redteam.md's briefs via general-purpose elsewhere — on the resulting draft, not the rough one (running it earlier wastes its signal on issues the lens-briefs would catch more cheaply). This is the piece most third-party academic-writing tooling doesn't have: three independent skeptics briefed to argue the work should be rejected, not to suggest improvements. Any single fatal verdict surfaces immediately, regardless of what the other two skeptics found.

Workflow: Citations

Copy this checklist and track progress:

- [ ] Step 1: check citation-key coverage
- [ ] Step 2: validate bib entries against CrossRef (only if network access + author consent)
- [ ] Step 3: resolve new papers by query or DOI, when adding a source

Step 1 — Coverage check (always safe, local-only). Run node scripts/check-citations.js <project-dir> [path/to/references.bib] — reports citation keys used in .tex and .qmd files that don't resolve in the bib file, and bib entries never cited. Omit the bib path to auto-discover the first .bib file under the project directory.

Step 2 — DOI/metadata validation (hits CrossRef). Run node scripts/validate-bib.js path/to/references.bib — flags title/author/year mismatches against CrossRef and placeholder DOIs. Network call per entry with a DOI; ask before running on a large bib file repeatedly.

Step 3 — Resolve a new source. Run node scripts/resolve-papers.js --query "search terms" [--year YYYY-YYYY] [--limit N] or node scripts/resolve-papers.js --doi "10.xxxx/yyyy" — searches Semantic Scholar/Unpaywall/CrossRef and emits ready-to-paste BibTeX. Does not write to the project's bib file automatically — hand the result to the author to review and add, per the citation-verification discipline in references/citation-workflows.md.

Style/backend questions (APA vs IEEE vs ACM, LaTeX vs Quarto citeproc): references/citation-workflows.md.

Error handling

If scripts/check-citations.js reports "No .bib file found," pass the path explicitly as the second argument rather than relying on auto-discovery.
If scripts/validate-bib.js or resolve-papers.js report unreachable APIs, the network call failed (rate limit or connectivity) — retry once; don't treat a single unreachable result as a confirmed mismatch.
If a CriticReview lens-brief agent returns zero findings, treat that as a real "checked, nothing found" result only if the brief's own report says so explicitly — a lens brief that goes silent on a section it should have covered is a dispatch failure, not a clean pass.

Gotchas

The two genre profiles are not interchangeable, and picking wrong is a structural failure, not a style one. A CV-paper Method/Experiments template applied to a DSR thesis discussion produces confidently wrong-shaped prose — the underlying source material this skill draws on is empirical-CS-flavored by default (see references/genre-empirical-cs.md's provenance note), so the DSR profile requires deliberate selection, not the default path.
check-citations.js's .qmd extractor requires a digit in the matched key (real citekeys are almost always authorYYYY...) to avoid false-positiving on prose that happens to contain a literal @word that isn't a citation (e.g. a placeholder comment like [@keys]). If a project uses non-standard digit-free citekeys, this will under-report — check manually in that case.
validate-bib.js and resolve-papers.js hit live public APIs (Semantic Scholar, CrossRef, Unpaywall) — no API key required, but rate limits apply on large bibliographies; don't loop them in a tight retry.
A citation can resolve in the bib file and still be wrong — check-citations.js only checks key existence, not whether the source actually supports the claim it's attached to. That's the bibliography-auditor lens-brief's job (references/critic-briefs.md), not the script's.
Dispatch CriticReview's five lens-briefs in parallel, not sequential — sequential dispatch lets later agents anchor on earlier findings and under-report their own lens.
Run the adversarial pass (adversarial-redteam.md) after the lens-brief fixes, not before — on a rough first draft it will produce a long list dominated by issues the cheaper lens-briefs would have caught; that's expected but wastes the adversarial pass's signal if run out of order.
scan-ai-tells.js's semicolon-splice pattern truncates its printed preview to 100 characters — the flagged semicolon can be past the visible slice, so a preview that looks like it has no semicolon in it is not a false positive on its own; open the file at the reported line number rather than judging from the preview text alone. The pattern also can't distinguish a real independent- clause splice from a legitimate structured/enumerated semicolon list — markdown table rows are already filtered out, but inline enumerated lists in prose are not; verify each hit.
scan-ai-tells.js patterns 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 from ai-cadence-tells.md are NOT scanned by the script (only patterns 1–2, the two mechanically detectable ones, plus the word-level filler list) — triads, run-ons, negation-elevation and false-hierarchy modifiers need editorial judgment a regex can't supply; check those manually or via the CriticReview lens-briefs.

Examples

Example 1: Citation coverage check on a live Quarto thesis

User: "check my thesis citations"
→ Invokes Citations workflow, Step 1
→ node scripts/check-citations.js <thesis-dir>/Paper
→ Reports: citation key used in prose but missing from the bib file, plus any unused bib entries

Example 2: Drafting a Discussion chapter section from bullet points

User provides bullet points for a DSR thesis Discussion chapter section.
→ Invokes Draft workflow
→ Step 1 confirms DSR/qualitative genre profile, reads references/genre-dsr-qualitative.md
→ Step 3 critiques the bullets against the profile's Discussion structure, then shows an improved
  version as an example — does not silently rewrite into "clean" prose

Example 3: Hard-critic pass before a submission deadline

User: "review this chapter like a hostile reviewer"
→ Invokes CriticReview workflow
→ Dispatches the five lens-briefs in parallel, author fixes what they find
→ Runs the adversarial 3-skeptic pass on the revised draft
→ Any "fatal" verdict surfaces immediately with the specific claim/section it attacks

Provenance and evaluation

Built 2026-07 from a source-material sweep of several third-party academic-writing tools (citation scripts, review-agent plugins, prose-template collections) — cherry-picked and rebuilt, not merged wholesale; see each reference file's own notes for what was ported vs. authored fresh. scripts/check-citations.js was run against a live multi-chapter Quarto thesis as its first real evaluation (not a synthetic test case): it initially over-matched on sentence-final punctuation and a literal non-citation @word mention in a code comment (both fixed — see the .qmd-extractor Gotcha above) and, once fixed, correctly surfaced a genuine missing bibliography entry cited three times in the live document. Re-run scripts/check-citations.js <project-dir> after any regex change to this extractor to confirm no regression against a real project before trusting its output again.