| name | academic-writing |
| description | 学术写作：起草、修改和润色学术论文、期刊文章 |
Academic Writing
Overview
Use this skill to turn rough research writing into publication-oriented prose. Focus on argument quality, structure, precision, and evidence alignment rather than generic "polishing."
Use the local docx skill when the user needs a .docx file edited with formatting or tracked changes. Use this skill to decide what the text should become.
When To Use
Use this skill when the user asks to:
- polish a paper section
- rewrite an abstract or introduction
- improve a thesis chapter
- draft related work or discussion sections
- prepare a rebuttal or response to reviewers
- convert notes into academic prose
- make English more natural without losing technical meaning
Workflow
1. Identify the writing artifact
Determine:
- artifact type
- target venue or degree context
- target audience
- desired intervention
Typical artifact types:
- abstract
- introduction
- related work
- methods
- experiments
- discussion
- conclusion
- rebuttal
- review response
- proposal
2. Preserve meaning before style
Before rewriting, identify:
- main claim
- evidence supporting the claim
- scope of the claim
- technical terms that must remain exact
Never improve fluency by weakening precision.
3. Fix the highest-level problems first
Prioritize in this order:
- argument structure
- paragraph logic
- sentence clarity
- concision
- tone and style
Do not waste effort on sentence polish when the paragraph is logically broken.
4. Match the academic task
Abstract
- problem
- method
- evidence
- contribution
- significance
Introduction
- context
- problem gap
- why prior work is insufficient
- proposed idea
- contribution list
Related work
- group prior work by line of approach
- explain limits of each line
- connect directly to the current paper
Rebuttal / reviewer response
- answer each concern explicitly
- concede valid issues
- avoid defensive language
- state concrete revisions or clarifications
5. Offer revision levels
When useful, provide one of these:
- light edit
- substantive rewrite
- structural rewrite
Make the chosen level explicit so the user understands how much changed.
Output Format
Use one of these depending on the request.
Polishing mode
## Revised Version
[clean rewritten text]
## Key Improvements
-
Reviewer-response mode
## Reviewer Comment
[comment]
## Response
[clear, respectful response]
## Planned Revision
-
Structure-feedback mode
## Main Issues
-
## Suggested Structure
-
## Revised Draft
[text]
Style Rules
- Prefer precise claims over inflated claims.
- Prefer short declarative sentences when the point is technical.
- Use hedge words only when uncertainty is real.
- Keep contribution statements explicit and countable.
- Avoid vague praise words such as "novel", "effective", or "robust" unless justified nearby.
- Preserve notation, dataset names, metric names, and baseline names exactly.
Guardrails
- Do not invent citations, results, or experimental details.
- Do not overclaim significance when the evidence is narrow.
- Do not erase the author's technical intent for smoother English.
- Do not produce rebuttal language that sounds emotional or combative.
- If the draft is missing evidence, say that the issue is substantive rather than stylistic.
