academic-style

name

academic-style

description

Use when drafting or editing academic prose — topic sentences, paragraph structure, APA-style citations, active voice, tense, hedging conventions, term definitions. Fires eagerly on any .qmd / .Rmd / .md / .tex file in an academic-research project. Do NOT use for the revision workflow — use `manuscript-revision` + `/critic-loop`. Do NOT use for factual or citation accuracy — use `grounded-citations` / `empirical-integrity` / `fact-check`.

Academic style

No pre-flight, no bootstrap by design. This is a doctrine skill — pure prose conventions. It does not call MCPs, does not install project scaffolds, and does not need /setup to have run. The procedural skills (zotero-operations, systematic-review, fact-check, critic-loop) gate themselves on check_configured.py; this one stays out of the way.

Core rule

Academic prose follows a small set of conventions that the agent applies during drafting, not only at revision time. These are the rules the critic-loop argument critic checks later — but writing them in correctly the first time reduces how much the critic loop has to fix.

This skill governs style and conventions only. It does not govern:

• Citation sourcing (Zotero-backed, consulted, claim-supporting) → grounded-citations rule-book.
• Quantitative claims (numbers from pipeline files) → empirical-integrity rule-book.
• When and how to revise a draft → manuscript-revision + the critic-loop skill.

Citations (APA-style)

Formatting only; sourcing is governed by grounded-citations — follow both. Format conventions:

• Inline: [@key] produces "(Smith, 2019)".
• Parenthetical with multiple: [@key1; @key2] produces "(Jones, 2020; Smith, 2019)".
• Narrative: @key [-@key] produces "Smith (2019)" / "Smith's (2019)".
• Three or more authors: render as et al. automatically via the CSL; do not hand-type "et al.".
• Cite the most specific pinpointable source. When a claim could come from a review or from the primary paper, cite the primary.

Voice and tense

• Active voice where it strengthens clarity: "We coded 1,243 papers" over "1,243 papers were coded". Passive is acceptable when the actor is unknown or unimportant.
• Methods in past tense (this study's actions): "We ran a pilot search against Scopus".
• Theory and established findings in present (ongoing truth): "Self-efficacy predicts persistence".
• Discussion is present when interpreting ("Our findings suggest") and past when describing what this study did ("We found").

Hedging calibration

Strong claims require strong evidence. Match hedging to design:

• Cross-sectional data warrants "associated with", "is correlated with", "differs across" — never "predicts", "causes", or "leads to".
• Observational longitudinal data without identification strategy warrants "is longitudinally associated with" or "precedes" — still not "causes".
• RCT / natural experiment / well-identified quasi-experiment warrants causal language.
• Don't hedge findings the field considers well-established (this signals false novelty). Don't over-claim findings that are novel.

(The critic-loop method critic flags violations at revision time — writing to this standard up-front means the critic has less to catch.)

Structure

• Empirical papers: IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion). Each section scope-checked against Introduction's stated research question.
• Review papers: synthesis over enumeration. The text must analyse across cited studies, not march through them one at a time. Long stretches of "Smith (2019) found X. Jones (2020) found Y. Kim (2021) found Z." are a red flag — replace with thematic prose that names patterns, tensions, or cumulative findings and cites multiple papers per claim.
• Topic sentences open paragraphs. Signposting at section transitions ("Having established X, we now turn to Y").

Terms and acronyms

• Define terms on first substantive use, not first mention.
• Expand acronyms on first occurrence: "better BibTeX (BBT)", then BBT thereafter.
• Consistent terminology throughout. Don't switch between "growth aspirations", "growth intentions", and "growth motivation" for the same construct without explaining the distinction.

Red flags

• You are writing "Smith (2019) found X. Jones (2020) found Y." chains in a review paper — replace with thematic synthesis citing multiple papers per claim.
• You are hedging a finding the field considers well-established — drop the hedge.
• You are over-claiming from cross-sectional data ("predicts", "causes") — switch to associational language.
• You introduced an acronym without expanding it.
• Terminology drift between sections — same construct, different names.
• You are using passive voice where the actor matters and is known.
• You are adding an et al. by hand instead of relying on CSL rendering from the BBT key.