Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From claude-scholar
Draft, restructure, or plan Nature-style manuscript sections from author-provided claims, results, figures, or notes. Useful when building or rebuilding manuscript arguments rather than polishing prose.
npx claudepluginhub galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar --plugin claude-scholarHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/claude-scholar:nature-writingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Use this skill when the user needs help creating or rebuilding manuscript prose,
README.mdagents/openai.yamlreferences/abstract.mdreferences/article-architecture.mdreferences/chinese-author-workflow.mdreferences/conclusion.mdreferences/examples/abstract-examples.mdreferences/examples/abstract/template-a.mdreferences/examples/abstract/template-b.mdreferences/examples/abstract/template-c.mdreferences/examples/index.mdreferences/examples/introduction-examples.mdreferences/examples/introduction/novel-task-challenge-decomposition.mdreferences/examples/introduction/pipeline-not-recommended-abstract-only.mdreferences/examples/introduction/pipeline-version-1-one-contribution-multi-advantages.mdreferences/examples/introduction/pipeline-version-2-two-contributions.mdreferences/examples/introduction/pipeline-version-3-new-module-on-existing-pipeline.mdreferences/examples/introduction/pipeline-version-4-observation-driven.mdreferences/examples/introduction/technical-challenge-version-1-existing-task.mdreferences/examples/introduction/technical-challenge-version-2-existing-task-insight-backed-by-traditional.mdDrafts and restructures Nature-style manuscript sections (abstract, intro, methods, etc.) from author-provided claims, results, figures, notes, or Chinese drafts. Routes to paper-type and section-specific writing guidance.
Use this skill for "write a paper", "draft manuscript", "write introduction", "write methods section", "write results", "write discussion", "write abstract", "structure a paper", "academic writing", "write for journal", or when the user wants to draft or revise sections of an academic manuscript.
Polishes academic prose to Nature-leaning English using writing-strategy principles and Academic Phrasebank. Useful for revising manuscript paragraphs, abstracts, or Chinese drafts.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Use this skill when the user needs help creating or rebuilding manuscript prose, not merely polishing existing sentences.
| File | Open when |
|---|---|
| references/article-architecture.md | You need section-level structure, argument order, or published-article writing patterns |
| references/abstract.md | Drafting or revising an abstract, especially challenge-contribution and challenge-insight-contribution forms |
| references/introduction.md | Drafting or revising an Introduction, task framing, technical challenge, contribution framing, or teaser/pipeline logic |
| references/related-work.md | Rebuilding Related Work as topic synthesis instead of a paper-by-paper list |
| references/method.md | Writing Method sections, pipeline modules, module motivation, technical advantages, or implementation details |
| references/experiments.md | Planning or writing Experiments/Results around baselines, ablations, metrics, tables, figures, and claim support |
| references/conclusion.md | Writing a bounded conclusion with contribution, evidence, impact, limitation, and future direction |
| references/paragraph-flow.md | User asks whether a paragraph flows, makes sense, or is clear; use reverse outlining and paragraph-message checks |
| references/paper-review.md | Final manuscript self-review, rejection-risk audit, claim-evidence alignment, or reviewer-facing critique |
| references/chinese-author-workflow.md | The user's notes are Chinese, mixed Chinese-English, or organized as lab notes rather than manuscript prose |
| references/examples/index.md | You need concrete abstract, introduction, or method examples after choosing the relevant guide |
Before drafting, identify:
If any of core claim, evidence or boundary is absent, expose the gap before
drafting. You may still produce a scaffold with explicit placeholders.
In [system/problem], we show [advance] using [approach], supported by [evidence], with [boundary].references/article-architecture.md.show, demonstrate, suggest, indicate, enable,
may, could.Default Nature pattern:
context/problem -> gap -> approach -> key result -> implication -> boundary
For technical AI, ML, CV or method-heavy manuscripts, open
references/abstract.md and choose one of:
challenge -> contributionchallenge -> insight -> contributionmultiple contributionsKeep it compact. Include quantitative or comparative detail when the user provided it. End with what the work enables, not generic importance.
Use:
field scale -> bottleneck -> prior attempts -> unresolved gap -> present study
For method-heavy papers, open references/introduction.md and reason backward
from the technical challenge and contribution before drafting forward.
Do not summarize all results. The final paragraph should state what this paper does and how it addresses the gap.
Use an evidence ladder:
system/workflow -> validation -> main result -> baseline comparison -> mechanism/diagnostic analysis -> application or generalization
Each subsection should have a claim-first opening and then data support.
For ML/conference-style experiment sections, open references/experiments.md
and make sure each major claim is backed by comparison, ablation, or stress-test
evidence.
Use:
topic scope -> representative methods -> limitation tied to this paper -> distinction
Group prior work by technical topic and mechanism, not by publication year.
Use:
central advance -> evidence meaning -> relation to prior work -> constraints -> future use
This is where interpretation and limitations belong. Do not repeat the Results section figure by figure.
Use:
contribution -> decisive evidence -> implication -> boundary
No new data. No unsupported promises.
Prefer concrete titles that combine:
system/object + action/capability + application or consequence
Avoid slogan titles, grant-style aims and overbroad field claims.
Default output:
Draft: with the requested prose.Section outline: with 3-7 compact bullets when the task involves a full section.Assumptions or missing inputs: with only material issues.Claim-evidence map: for major claims, using Claim: ... | Evidence: ... | Status: supported/needs evidence.Why this structure: with 2-4 short bullets.For Chinese author notes, provide polished English first, then brief Chinese notes explaining major structural choices.