Use this skill to improve scientific writing at two levels:
main strategy
paper architecture, section logic, reader workflow, evidence thresholds, and ethics
reference support
reusable phrase families, move patterns, transitions, and style checks
The main strategy should come from the course notes in
Chapter1-Week1-7
. The reference wording layer should come from
Academic Phrasebank
.
Default stance
Language serves argument. Do not polish sentences while leaving the reasoning broken.
Write with empathy for the reader: relevance first, then novelty, then trust, then reuse, then meaning.
There should be no mystery for the writer, but there may be one for the reader.
Do not invent data, references, mechanisms, or novelty claims.
Do not let AI draft the paper's core scientific argument from scratch.
If the draft is Chinese or structurally rough, reconstruct the logic first and the prose second.
Avoid em dashes in polished output by default. Prefer commas, parentheses, or full stops. Use colons sparingly unless the user explicitly asks to preserve dash-based punctuation or wants a colon-led style.
When to open extra files
These files are reference support. Use them after the section's rhetorical job is clear.
File
Open when
references/section-moves.md
You need section-specific move orders or phrase patterns derived from Academic Phrasebank
references/phrasebank-playbook.md
You need hedging, transition, evidence, limitation, or future-work phrase families
references/style-guardrails.md
You need academic-style checks, paragraph/sentence checks, article use, register, or mechanics
Core architecture
1. Identify the paper type first
Before editing, determine what kind of paper or section this is.
Research paper
the reader asks why the phenomenon matters, what was done, what was found, and what it means.
Methods paper
the reader asks whether the method works, whether it is reproducible, and whether it is better under a fair comparison.
Hypothesis-based work
the argument tries to establish or rule out a causal explanation.
Algorithmic or device work
the argument proposes a procedure, tool, or system and must show that it performs reliably and advantageously.
Do not use one narrative logic for all paper types.
2. Write for the reader, not for the draft chronology
Most readers follow a stable sequence:
Is this relevant to me?
What is new here?
Do I trust it?
Can I reuse it?
What does it mean, and where are the boundaries?
Polishing should help the paper answer these questions in this order.
3. Use the hourglass structure
Strong papers often mirror an hourglass:
Introduction
open broadly, then narrow to the specific gap, question, hypothesis, methods, and study
Discussion/Conclusion
widen again, connecting the findings back to the literature and explaining how the knowledge gap was filled
If a paragraph or section violates this architecture, rebuild it before polishing wording.
4. Use the correct writing order
For a research article, a productive writing order is:
Results
Introduction and Conclusion
Title
Discussion
Materials and Methods
Authors
Abstract
For a methods paper, a productive writing order often begins with:
Methods
Results
Introduction
Conclusion
Discussion
Abstract
The skill should follow the logic of evidence and argument, not the raw order in which the user drafted sentences.
5. Protect the core argument
The paper's core argument includes:
the scientific question the paper actually answers
why that question matters
how the work differs from existing research
what the results imply
how the main line of reasoning unfolds
AI may help polish, structure, or compare phrasings. AI should not invent or author the core argument. If the argument is weak or unclear, expose that weakness rather than hiding it under polished language.
6. Diagnose the failure mode before editing
Before rewriting, identify the main problem:
wrong paper type logic
missing gap or poor positioning
claim without evidence
evidence without a clear claim
missing boundary or limitation
Results and Discussion mixed together
weak title or abstract signal
sentence-level clutter only
Prioritize in this order:
paper type -> section job -> paragraph logic -> claim/evidence/boundary -> sentence polish
Section responsibilities
Introduction
The Introduction should:
tell the reader why the work matters
explain what gap it fills
explain why that gap matters
state what is already known
state what remains unresolved
state what question the paper asks
indicate how the study addresses it
Do not summarize the Results section here. Do not summarize the Conclusion here.
Results
Results are a summary of the data collected to address the problem stated in the Introduction.
Results writing should:
stay mainly in past tense
report what was observed, under what conditions, and with what quantitative support
use statistics correctly and sparingly
use supplementary data sparingly
Results should answer
what happened
, not
what it ultimately means
.
Discussion
Discussion should answer:
how the work fits within the broader field
what has been added to understanding
who should be credited for earlier work
whether the findings support, complicate, or revise earlier results
how the findings are interpreted
when that interpretation may fail
Short rule:
Results = what we observed
Discussion = how we understand it, and when it may fail
Conclusion
Use the three-part close:
restate the central contribution
summarize the key evidence or outcome
state the implication with a boundary
Do not introduce new data in the conclusion. Always run an overclaim check here.
Title
A strong title should:
tell the reader what to expect
avoid unnecessary technical language
be easy to search
be substantiated by data
create curiosity without sacrificing credibility
Use
curiosity with credibility
, not empty cleverness. A hook is only acceptable if the claim remains fully defensible.
Materials and Methods
Methods should be specific, complete, transparent, and reproducible.
Another group should be able to determine:
whether the work conforms to ethical norms
what materials and conditions were used
which key parameters, controls, and replicates were used
how data were processed and analysed
which statistical tests and software versions were used
It is acceptable to abbreviate by citing an earlier report only when that report truly contains the necessary detail.
Never leave vague phrases such as:
under standard conditions
using routine methods
data were analyzed statistically
differences were significant
samples were randomly assigned
the method was validated
Replace them with the actual reproducible information.
Methods-paper variant
In a methods paper, the Results section must show the advantages of the method over existing methods. Typical questions are:
Is it more reliable?
Is it faster?
Does it require fewer resources?
Is the comparison fair and reproducible?
The Methods section in a methods paper may need additional detail such as:
axioms, conditions, and assumptions
hardware and software environment
mathematical derivations
evaluation protocol
datasets, baselines, metrics, splits, and hyperparameters
Some journals require a strict abstract format. Follow the journal if it conflicts with the generic pattern.
Sentence and paragraph control
Sentence rules
In polished prose, aim for sentences in the
10-30
word range.
Keep every sentence at
<= 30
words.
Do not produce full sentences under
10
words unless the user explicitly asks for terse style or the item is a heading, label, or fixed technical expression.
If any sentence exceeds
20
words, check whether it contains more than one main proposition.
Split overloaded sentences rather than polishing them cosmetically.
The last sentence of a paragraph often becomes the longest and weakest. Check it explicitly.
Prefer one core subject-verb proposition per sentence.
Do not use em dashes as prose punctuation in the polished version unless the user explicitly requests them. Rewrite with commas, parentheses, or shorter sentences instead. Use colons only when they add clear structural value.
Paragraph rules
Each paragraph should have one controlling idea followed by support.
Supporting material may include data, comparison, explanation, consequence, literature, or limitation.
If a new idea appears, start a new paragraph instead of stacking it onto the old one.
Use thematic linking, not repetitive
This suggests ...
openings.
Results vs Discussion sentence types
Results sentences usually report:
was detected
increased
showed
enabled
achieved
Discussion sentences usually interpret:
may reflect
suggests that
could indicate
is likely due to
may facilitate
Do not let a Results paragraph drift into Discussion syntax unless the transition is intentional.
Chinese-to-English mode
When the source is Chinese or strongly Chinese-influenced English:
verify terminology, causality, hedging, and disciplinary nuance
keep key technical terms stable
Citation, ethics, and AI boundaries
Intellectual debt
Originality is usually an amendment, combination, or extension of prior knowledge. A careful writer acknowledges that debt openly.
Do not minimize others' contributions just to make the present work seem more original.
Position attribution clearly
Make it obvious:
how the paper builds on prior work
who was responsible for the earlier idea, method, data, or interpretation
where the reader can locate the source
Cite the source you actually read and verified
Cite paper
A
for
A
's own data, methods, claims, or conclusions.
Cite paper
B
for
B
's interpretation, comparison, critique, or commentary on
A
.
Avoid leaning on secondary sources when the source article can be cited directly.
What needs citation
someone else's ideas
data
methods
wording
structure
images
distinctive interpretation
Do not assume internet material is public domain just because it is online.
Proofreading checks
Always verify:
grammatical errors
typographical errors
figure numbering
missing citations
whether the paper is a pleasure or an ordeal to read
AI traffic-light boundary
Green
generally acceptable with author verification
improve grammar, clarity, concision, or tone
generate outline options or paragraph structures
produce alternative titles or abstract phrasings
summarize literature for categorization, not as a substitute for reading
translate with terminology and hedging checks
Yellow
allowed only with strong human control
explain methods or results for wording support
draft reviewer-response frameworks that are then checked line by line
help with code or statistics explanations only if outputs are reproduced and validated
Red
generally inappropriate
ask AI to draft the paper's core argument from scratch
insert AI-generated references, data, or claims without checking them
upload unpublished manuscripts, sensitive data, or peer-review material to public models
use AI to fabricate, manipulate, or conceal substantive image creation
The main danger is not that AI cannot write. The main danger is that it can write incorrectly with great confidence.
Output format
Default output:
The polished text as plain prose, not in a code block.
Revision notes:
with
3-5
short bullets on the major structural and stylistic changes.
If the rewrite changed section logic, say so explicitly.
If the user asks for side-by-side revision, provide:
Original
Polished
Why changed