research-nature-writing

name	research-nature-writing
description	Use when planning, drafting, restructuring, or polishing high-impact journal style academic prose, Nature-style manuscript sections, article abstracts, introductions, discussions, contribution statements, or publication-leaning research writing.

Research Nature Writing

This skill adapts high-impact article-writing logic into a safer general research-writing layer.

It improves argument presentation. It does not create evidence.

Dependency Chain

For formal, supervisor/PI/client/reviewer-facing, or submission-facing writing, use this skill only after:

1. source-first checks;
2. compliance/privacy checks where relevant;
3. cognitive-framework planning;
4. source-readiness and citation checks where relevant;
5. academic self-review loop for formal prose.

Then use:

• relevant academic/professional style checks;
• document-quality and delivery gates.

Existing Skill Boundary

Existing Skill	Boundary
uk-academic-writing-style	Controls British academic tone when relevant
academic-self-review-loop	Judges intrinsic paragraph quality before style polish
dissertation-literature-review	Controls literature synthesis and source clusters
dissertation-citation-audit	Checks citations and claim support
research-nature-writing	Adds high-impact article logic: sharper problem framing, contribution line, paragraph movement, and reader journey

Workflow

1. Identify the writing object:
   • abstract;
   • introduction;
   • literature review / related work;
   • methods;
   • discussion;
   • conclusion;
   • contribution statement;
   • title or highlights.
2. State the claim, evidence status, and audience.
3. Improve structure before wording:
   • problem;
   • gap or bottleneck;
   • move made by this study;
   • evidence or method warrant;
   • contribution boundary.
4. Improve paragraph flow:
   • one controlling point per paragraph;
   • topic sentence as a mini-claim;
   • citations serve the point, not a reading list;
   • final sentence moves the argument forward.
5. Polish wording only after evidence and logic are stable.

Guardrails

• Do not invent citations, results, methods, participants, datasets, reviewer feedback, or institutional requirements.
• Do not promise publication readiness, acceptance, official marks, funding, client approval, or AI-detector outcomes.
• Do not import hype, overclaiming, or novelty inflation from journal style.
• Preserve project-specific caution and compliance requirements.
• If source support is weak, weaken the claim rather than strengthening the language.