engineering-paper-skills

Audit English engineering manuscripts like a strict reviewer without drafting final prose. Use when the user asks to review, diagnose, critique, find paper weaknesses, check claim-evidence logic, inspect section boundaries, identify overclaims, assess figures/tables against claims, or produce a paper-quality action list before writing, polishing, response drafting, or validation.

Draft, audit, or revise English response letters and revision plans for engineering papers from advisor, senior-author, reviewer, or editor comments. Use when the user provides comments, decision letters, rebuttal notes, revision drafts, or asks how to respond, what to revise, how to classify comments, how to avoid over-editing, or how to map each comment to manuscript changes.

Validate English engineering manuscript readiness before claiming edits are complete. Use when the user asks to check a paper, compile LaTeX, inspect references, page count, citations, figure/table consistency, claim-evidence anchors, final-paper synchronization, submission checklist, or whether a conference/journal manuscript is safe to submit. This is readiness validation, not certification that experiments, citations, or claims are true unless the relevant sources and checks were actually provided and inspected.

Draft, restructure, or plan English engineering research paper sections from author-provided claims, methods, results, figures, notes, outlines, LaTeX files, or manuscript drafts. Use for section logic, contribution-evidence mapping, abstract/introduction/related-work/methods/experiments/discussion/conclusion drafting, and evidence-bounded manuscript prose. Do not use for pure language polishing, figure/table-only work, reviewer responses, or final build/readiness validation unless the user explicitly asks for those workflows.

Route ambiguous or mixed English engineering paper tasks to the correct engineering paper skill. Use when the user asks broadly to improve my paper, check my manuscript, revise this draft, prepare submission, respond to comments, or combine drafting, polishing, figure/table work, response drafting, and validation.

Use for a lightweight, conservative first pass on engineering paper writing, manuscript audit, paragraph repair, claim-bound polishing, reviewer-response planning, or readiness triage when the user wants practical Markdown guidance rather than a structured JSON benchmark. Best for robotics, machine learning, control, and systems papers with partial author evidence.

Polish, locally restructure, or translate source notes into English engineering manuscript prose while preserving evidence boundaries. Use when the user asks to improve English academic style, paragraph flow, claim strength, anti-AI wording, terminology consistency, hedging, clarity, or publication-ready expression for existing engineering conference or journal paper content. Do not use for creating a new section argument, figure/table-only work, reviewer responses, or readiness validation.

Plan, revise, audit, or polish figures, tables, captions, table notes, and visual evidence flow for English engineering conference or journal papers. Use when the user asks about figure responsibility, multi-panel layout, main-result tables, ablation tables, captions, table formatting, object/category naming consistency, page budget for visuals, or whether visuals support manuscript claims.