菜单
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.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills --skill results-section-revision命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Use when auditing, restructuring, or revising a research manuscript whose scientific question, claim hierarchy, evidence chain, section logic, figures, terminology, or prose may be unclear or out of sync. Apply before sentence-level polishing, especially for whole drafts, major revisions, resubmissions, overclaiming, experiment-by-experiment Results, inaccessible narratives, or manuscripts that need a claim-driven architecture.
Entry point for any manuscript request that does not name a specific skill. Load this FIRST whenever the ask is general, then run the chain it prescribes. Covers optimize my paper, improve the manuscript, polish this draft, make this better, clean it up, help with my paper, review my writing, get this ready to submit, work on the paper, and the Chinese equivalents 优化论文, 改论文, 润色论文, 帮我看看论文, 论文写作, 学术写作, 把论文弄好, 论文修改, 投稿前检查. Also decides which skill applies and how to sequence manuscript work from project setup through submission and rebuttal, including the separate path for a Review, survey, or Perspective. A general manuscript request is never served well by one skill alone; this file decides which chain to run.
Analyze, draft, revise, or audit scientific peer-review response letters and point-by-point rebuttals. Use for reviewer comments, response letters, rebuttals, revision summaries, quoted manuscript changes, replies that must align with a manuscript or Supplementary Information, and submission-ready checks of direct question-answer alignment, evidence, figures, tables, notes, panels, terminology, numbers, and internal citations. Especially useful when replies must reuse the reviewer's terms, map every sub-question to an explicit answer, report new analyses or experiments, identify exact revision locations, or distinguish mandatory fixes from optional polishing.
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| 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.