Exécutez n'importe quel Skill dans Manus
en un clic

Exécutez n'importe quel Skill dans Manus en un clic

scientific-revision

Étoiles2

Forks0

Mis à jour3 avril 2026 à 10:36

Use this skill whenever the user wants to verify, revise, or improve a scientific essay, academic paper, or any written document. It checks citation consistency, verifies bibliography entries via CrossRef and Google Scholar/Semantic Scholar, and detects AI-generated writing patterns (slop). Trigger this skill whenever the user mentions 'check citations', 'verify references', 'scientific revision', 'revise essay', 'clean up writing', 'check for AI slop', 'improve writing quality', 'check google scholar', or 'review my paper', especially in academic or professional writing contexts.

Installation

Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.

Exécuter dans Manus

Source

bmsuisse

bmsuisse/skills

Ouvrir le dépôt GitHub Voir les dépôts du créateur

Téléchargement

Exécuter dans Manus

Métiers associésSOC

Basé sur la classification professionnelle SOC

Enseignants postsecondaires en langue et littérature anglaisesEnseignement et bibliothèques·SOC 25-1123

Explorateur de fichiers

6 fichiers

SKILL.md

readonly

name	scientific-revision
plugin	writing
description	Use this skill whenever the user wants to verify, revise, or improve a scientific essay, academic paper, or any written document. It checks citation consistency, verifies bibliography entries via CrossRef and Google Scholar/Semantic Scholar, and detects AI-generated writing patterns (slop). Trigger this skill whenever the user mentions 'check citations', 'verify references', 'scientific revision', 'revise essay', 'clean up writing', 'check for AI slop', 'improve writing quality', 'check google scholar', or 'review my paper', especially in academic or professional writing contexts.

Scientific Revision Skill

This skill provides four tools for document review:

Citation Checker — cross-checks in-text citations against the bibliography
CrossRef Verifier — checks whether bibliography entries are real publications
Scholar Verifier — checks entries against Google Scholar (via scholarly) with Semantic Scholar as fallback
Writing Quality Checker — detects AI slop patterns, vague language, and terminology inconsistencies

Works with any document that has a bibliography/references section. Supports APA, MLA, Chicago, and language-native citation styles in English, German, French, and Italian — parenthetical and narrative styles.

Scripts

All scripts live in .agents/skills/scientific-revision/scripts/. Pass the document path as the first argument; all scripts default to docs/essay/essay.md if omitted.

1. Citation Checker

python .agents/skills/scientific-revision/scripts/check_citations.py [path/to/document.md]

Finds citations in text missing from bibliography — and suggests alternatives from the bibliography that might be the intended reference.
Finds bibliography entries never cited in the text.

2. Bibliography Verification (CrossRef)

python .agents/skills/scientific-revision/scripts/verify_crossref.py [path/to/document.md]

Queries the CrossRef API to verify each bibliography entry is a real publication.
Generates a citation_report.md in the same directory as the input file.
Books and software get medium confidence by default (not indexed in CrossRef).

3. Bibliography Verification (Google Scholar / Semantic Scholar)

python .agents/skills/scientific-revision/scripts/verify_scholar.py [path/to/document.md]

Uses the Semantic Scholar API via httpx (no library dependency issues).
Optionally cross-checks with Google Scholar via scholarly (install with uv add scholarly).
Also reports citation counts, useful to gauge publication impact.
Generates a citation_report_scholar.md in the same directory as the input file.
Complement CrossRef: use both to catch entries that appear in one index but not the other.
Set SEMANTIC_SCHOLAR_API_KEY env var for a free key that raises the rate limit.

4. Writing Quality Checker

python .agents/skills/scientific-revision/scripts/check_writing.py [path/to/document.md]

Flags AI slop phrases (e.g., "delve into", "it is worth noting", "seamlessly", "leverage").
Detects terminology inconsistencies (e.g., mixing "dataset" and "data set").
Flags repetitive sentence/paragraph starters.
Reports line numbers so issues are easy to locate.

Supported Section Headers

The scripts auto-detect bibliography sections with any of these headings: References, Bibliography, Works Cited (EN) · Literaturverzeichnis, Literatur (DE) · Bibliographie, Références (FR) · Bibliografia, Riferimenti bibliografici, Opere citate (IT)

Workflow

When the user asks you to revise or verify their document, follow this sequence unless instructed otherwise:

Check Citations: Run check_citations.py. For each missing citation, review the suggested alternatives and ask the user if one of them is the intended reference. Report uncited bibliography entries too.
Verify References (CrossRef): Run verify_crossref.py. Share the generated citation_report.md with the user, highlighting any low-confidence entries that may be hallucinated or incorrect.
Verify References (Scholar): Run verify_scholar.py. Cross-reference the citation_report_scholar.md with the CrossRef results.
- An entry flagged low by CrossRef but verified by Scholar (or vice-versa) warrants closer manual review.
- Highlight citation counts for entries with zero citations — these may be obscure or fabricated.
Check Writing Quality: Run check_writing.py. For each flagged phrase or inconsistency, propose a concrete rewrite. Don't just list problems — offer the user improved versions of the flagged sentences.

After all four checks, give the user a concise summary of:

Citation issues found and resolved
Bibliography entries that could not be verified by either CrossRef or Scholar
Any discrepancies between CrossRef and Scholar results
Writing quality issues and suggested improvements

Plus depuis ce dépôt

même dépôt

rich-data-tables

bmsuisse/skills

Use whenever building a UI table, list view, or dashboard panel showing records with amounts, dates, or statuses (invoices, tickets, orders, tasks, leads, log entries, etc.) — in React/HTML/artifacts, TanStack Table column defs, or when writing/reviewing component code for one. Consult before rendering a "flat" table (raw columns, no aggregation, no visual encoding), even if the user just says "make a table" or "show this data" — a bare table is rarely the best answer once rows carry a magnitude, a due date, or a status. Also use when asked to "make this table nicer", "more like a dashboard", or to add KPIs/summary above a table.

2026-07-142

init-app-stack

bmsuisse/skills

Use this skill whenever the user wants to bootstrap, scaffold, or initialize a new full-stack app with a Vite + React + TanStack + shadcn/ui frontend and a FastAPI + Postgres backend. Triggers on requests like "create a new app", "set up a project", "scaffold a full-stack app", "init a new project", or anything involving starting a fresh React/FastAPI application from scratch.

2026-07-132

cross-repo-discovery

bmsuisse/skills

Discover repos across the whole Azure DevOps org — not just the one you're sitting in — and figure out where a piece of functionality actually lives before assuming it doesn't exist locally. Generates ALL_REPOS.md, a map of every project/repo in the org, each repo's description, and whether it's already cloned locally (and where). Use this whenever the user asks about "other repos", "which repo has X", cross-repo/cross-service work, wants to find or clone a repo they don't have locally yet, or when you're stuck looking for code that isn't in the current repo and it might live elsewhere in the org. Trigger on things like "is there already a repo for this", "check across our other repos", "what repos do we have", "where's the shared X library", or "I don't think this exists yet, can you check devops".

2026-07-132

database-in-source

bmsuisse/skills

Conventions for versioning a PostgreSQL schema as plain `.sql` files inside a `database/` folder in the repo, instead of an ORM migration framework. Use when creating/organising a `database/` folder, adding a new table/view/function/type, or deciding where a migration script goes. Triggers on things like "add a new table to database/", "where do table definitions live", "database folder structure", "schema layer", "migration script", ".prod file", ".init.sql".

2026-07-102

postgres-best-practices

bmsuisse/skills

PostgreSQL coding standards for Python projects using psycopg (no ORM). Use this skill whenever the user is writing or reviewing code that queries PostgreSQL with psycopg, creates SQL files, maps query results to Python objects, or asks how to structure database access code. Triggers on things like "add a database query", "write a SQL query", "create a repository", "fetch from postgres", "insert into the database", "update the DB", "parameterized query", "pydantic model from DB row", "sql file", "dynamic SQL", or any mention of psycopg, psycopg2, asyncpg, or SQLAlchemy where the user seems open to a different approach. Also use when the user asks about connection pooling, transactions, cursor factories, or how to organise database code.

2026-07-102

postgres-test-setup

bmsuisse/skills

Set up and work with a local PostgreSQL test database in Docker for integration/e2e tests. Use this skill whenever the user wants to add, configure, troubleshoot, or run queries against a local test Postgres instance — even if they don't say "postgres" explicitly. Triggers on things like "set up a test database", "add postgres fixtures", "init test DB", "local postgres for tests", "add a column", "create a table", "change the schema", "run a SQL query on my test DB", "reset the database", "database is out of sync", "test data", or anything involving the local test Postgres database. Also use this skill when the user asks how to inspect the test DB, seed rows, or apply a migration to the local environment.

2026-07-102

name	scientific-revision
plugin	writing
description	Use this skill whenever the user wants to verify, revise, or improve a scientific essay, academic paper, or any written document. It checks citation consistency, verifies bibliography entries via CrossRef and Google Scholar/Semantic Scholar, and detects AI-generated writing patterns (slop). Trigger this skill whenever the user mentions 'check citations', 'verify references', 'scientific revision', 'revise essay', 'clean up writing', 'check for AI slop', 'improve writing quality', 'check google scholar', or 'review my paper', especially in academic or professional writing contexts.

Scientific Revision Skill

This skill provides four tools for document review:

Citation Checker — cross-checks in-text citations against the bibliography
CrossRef Verifier — checks whether bibliography entries are real publications
Scholar Verifier — checks entries against Google Scholar (via scholarly) with Semantic Scholar as fallback
Writing Quality Checker — detects AI slop patterns, vague language, and terminology inconsistencies

Scripts

All scripts live in .agents/skills/scientific-revision/scripts/. Pass the document path as the first argument; all scripts default to docs/essay/essay.md if omitted.

1. Citation Checker

python .agents/skills/scientific-revision/scripts/check_citations.py [path/to/document.md]

Finds citations in text missing from bibliography — and suggests alternatives from the bibliography that might be the intended reference.
Finds bibliography entries never cited in the text.

2. Bibliography Verification (CrossRef)

python .agents/skills/scientific-revision/scripts/verify_crossref.py [path/to/document.md]

Queries the CrossRef API to verify each bibliography entry is a real publication.
Generates a citation_report.md in the same directory as the input file.
Books and software get medium confidence by default (not indexed in CrossRef).

3. Bibliography Verification (Google Scholar / Semantic Scholar)

python .agents/skills/scientific-revision/scripts/verify_scholar.py [path/to/document.md]

Uses the Semantic Scholar API via httpx (no library dependency issues).
Optionally cross-checks with Google Scholar via scholarly (install with uv add scholarly).
Also reports citation counts, useful to gauge publication impact.
Generates a citation_report_scholar.md in the same directory as the input file.
Complement CrossRef: use both to catch entries that appear in one index but not the other.
Set SEMANTIC_SCHOLAR_API_KEY env var for a free key that raises the rate limit.

4. Writing Quality Checker

python .agents/skills/scientific-revision/scripts/check_writing.py [path/to/document.md]

Flags AI slop phrases (e.g., "delve into", "it is worth noting", "seamlessly", "leverage").
Detects terminology inconsistencies (e.g., mixing "dataset" and "data set").
Flags repetitive sentence/paragraph starters.
Reports line numbers so issues are easy to locate.

Supported Section Headers

Workflow

When the user asks you to revise or verify their document, follow this sequence unless instructed otherwise:

Check Citations: Run check_citations.py. For each missing citation, review the suggested alternatives and ask the user if one of them is the intended reference. Report uncited bibliography entries too.
Verify References (CrossRef): Run verify_crossref.py. Share the generated citation_report.md with the user, highlighting any low-confidence entries that may be hallucinated or incorrect.
Verify References (Scholar): Run verify_scholar.py. Cross-reference the citation_report_scholar.md with the CrossRef results.
- An entry flagged low by CrossRef but verified by Scholar (or vice-versa) warrants closer manual review.
- Highlight citation counts for entries with zero citations — these may be obscure or fabricated.
Check Writing Quality: Run check_writing.py. For each flagged phrase or inconsistency, propose a concrete rewrite. Don't just list problems — offer the user improved versions of the flagged sentences.

After all four checks, give the user a concise summary of:

Citation issues found and resolved
Bibliography entries that could not be verified by either CrossRef or Scholar
Any discrepancies between CrossRef and Scholar results
Writing quality issues and suggested improvements