メニュー
Use when revising a scientific manuscript Results section whose figures, evidence, and main claims are mostly fixed, but subsection flow, paragraph openings, reader guidance, and argumentative progression still feel abrupt, repetitive, or figure-by-figure.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Use when checking manuscript citations, bibliography hygiene, DOI or PMID completeness, placeholder references, or BibTeX consistency before submission or revision.
Use when drafting, auditing, or revising Data Availability statements, repository plans, accession-number placement, source-data coverage, or restricted-data wording for journal submission or resubmission.
Use when starting a new manuscript project or cleaning up an existing paper directory and you need a standard structure, active source files, project memory, and venue defaults before deeper writing begins.
Use when deciding which paper-related skill to use or how to sequence manuscript work from project setup through submission and rebuttal.
Use when responding to journal or conference reviewer comments and you need a structured author response, aligned manuscript edits, and clear decisions about when to clarify, add evidence, concede, or respectfully disagree.
Use when writing or revising scientific manuscripts, abstracts, figures, or references for journal submission and you need full-paragraph prose, scientific structure, citation-style guidance, or reporting-guideline support.
| name | results-section-revision |
| description | Use when revising a scientific manuscript Results section whose figures, evidence, and main claims are mostly fixed, but subsection flow, paragraph openings, reader guidance, and argumentative progression still feel abrupt, repetitive, or figure-by-figure. |
Use this skill for late-stage Results revision when the science is mostly stable but the writing architecture is not. It is narrower than scientific-writing and manuscript-optimizer: the job here is to repair subsection titles, bridge paragraphs, paragraph openings, and local argumentative flow.
Use scientific-writing for general prose drafting or rewriting. Use manuscript-optimizer when the claim hierarchy, evidence chain, or figure logic is still unstable. Use this skill when the section is largely right but still reads like stitched figure captions rather than a controlled argument.
Before revising any Results subsection, check:
we asked, we examined, or to test this overused?Each Results subsection should answer two reader questions in order:
If the second question appears before the first, the subsection will feel abrupt.
The first paragraph should bridge from the previous subsection and state why the next analysis is necessary. Later paragraphs should each do one job: sharpen a finding, separate related findings, show a consequence for evaluation or prioritization, or explain what a comparison actually distinguishes.
Prefer openings that either orient the reader or state a concrete result:
The molecular branch first showed ...The same pattern was also evident in ...A further question was whether ...Cross-representation analyses showed ...Avoid repeated procedural scaffolds:
To test this ...We next asked ...We then examined ...At the start of a new paragraph, avoid vague pronouns unless the referent is unmistakable. Replace this structure or that mismatch with the explicit noun phrase.