// Section-level writing skill for evidence-bound academic prose: IMRaD papers, grants, reports, talks, and response letters. Indexes section-specific templates (abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion) and pre-submission quality protocols (claim-evidence, reviewer rubric, response letter).
Skills for rare disease case support: ontology-first normalization/retrieval and the clinical genetics consult report format contract (structure + theme). Load the relevant skill file when performing the matching task.
Scenario router for paper-writing tasks. Use after root triage to select paper submission, journal article, conference paper, grant proposal, lab report, group report, talk/workshop, or revision-response behavior.
Routing and workflow skill family for paper-writing tasks. Covers manuscript drafting, journal and conference papers, grant proposals, lab reports, group-meeting reports, talks, workshop notes, reviewer rebuttals, academic HTML/PDF/LaTeX output with editable-block contracts, citation grounding, evidence checking, and pre-submission quality gates.
Workflow phases for paper-writing tasks: triage, material inventory, research question, literature review, paper outline, data analysis summary, figure storyline, reader testing, and finalize packet. Each phase is a short contract — read the relevant rows for the current task only.
Skills for opening and driving agent-controllable visualization components in the Pantheon UI sidebar — interactive viewers the agent can open, control, and read back. Viewers: Vitessce (spatial / single- cell omics), Viv (bioimage / microscopy), plus agent-generated apps.
Skills for querying and downloading data from genomic, transcriptomic, 3D-genome, and cancer-genomics databases. Covers programmatic access to public repositories, gene annotation, sequence retrieval, processed functional-genomics tracks, Hi-C / Micro-C contact matrices, TCGA-style cohorts, and large-scale single-cell data.
| id | paper_writing_section_drafting |
| name | Evidence-Bound Section Drafting |
| description | Section-level writing skill for evidence-bound academic prose: IMRaD papers, grants, reports, talks, and response letters. Indexes section-specific templates (abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion) and pre-submission quality protocols (claim-evidence, reviewer rubric, response letter). |
| tags | ["paper_writing","writing","imrad"] |
Use only after triage, outline, and evidence boundaries exist (see ../workflow/SKILL.md and ../SKILL.md).
draft/paper.md as the content source of truth.claim_evidence_map.md.missing evidence to ask for material, downgrade, or remove claims.| Section | Role | Quality gate |
|---|---|---|
| Title | searchable, precise, not inflated | no vague clever title |
| Abstract | problem, gap, method, key result, meaning | no result-free impact claim |
| Introduction | known → gap → insufficiency → approach → contribution | gap and contribution align |
| Related work | themed positioning | not chronological paper dump |
| Methods | reproducible protocol | data/software/parameters/statistics clear |
| Results | question → method → observation → quantitative result → interpretation | each result points to figure/table/data |
| Discussion | finding, relation to literature, mechanism, limits, future | no new data |
| Limitations | honest boundary and risk | no hidden fatal flaw |
| Conclusion | contribution and boundary | not abstract repetition |
Read the corresponding skill file before drafting each section.
| Section | File | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract | abstract.md | Three proven templates (Challenge→Contribution, Challenge→Insight→Contribution, Multiple Contributions); 150–250 words; no citations |
| Introduction | introduction.md | Logic Map: Task → Challenge → Solution → Advantage; backward writing |
| Methods | method.md | Reproducibility checklist: software versions, parameters, hardware, data/code statements |
| Results | results.md | Each subsection ≥1 figure/table reference; claim → evidence; present tense |
| Discussion | discussion.md | Four-part structure: Interpretation → Comparison → Limitations → Future |
| Response Letter | response_letter.md | Reviewer-comment-to-response unit format |
| Skill | File | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Claim-Evidence Check | claim_evidence_check.md | Verify every major claim has supporting evidence; target ≥80% |
| Reviewer Rubric (NeurIPS-style) | reviewer_rubric.md | 6-dimension peer-review simulation with worked example |
Sources: Research-Paper-Writing-Skills (Master-cai, MIT), AI-Scientist (SakanaAI, MIT), ResearAI writer.md, K-Dense scientific-writing/SKILL.md, mattpocock writing-shape/SKILL.md.