scientific-writer
From the author
Use when the user has a scientific draft (with its dataset, figures, and optional analysis code) and wants it iteratively revised until it clears a quality bar. Five specialist judges (figures, scientific content, style, formatting, code) critique the draft; a fresh, independent peer_reviewer grades it on those same axes (1-5 each → a percentage) with honesty guardrails; a scientific_writer revises prose, figures, and code — regenerating figures by running the user's plot command — until the peer-review score clears the threshold or the budget is hit. Not for writing a paper from a blank page, and not for a standalone literature survey.
Install
npx skills add gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills --skill scientific-writer -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/scientific-writer/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
Byte-identical to the scanned commit, with the repository’s licence and a SOURCE.txt.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
No warnings.
Why 80
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- scientific-figuregaasher/Agent-Loop-SkillsUse when the user has scientific data (or a prompt alluding to scientific data) and wants a publication-quality figure made from it. A generator drafts and renders a figure that lands a frozen communication goal; an adversarial critic critiques it hard and grades it 1-5 per axis against a fixed rubric (message, aesthetic, clarity, integrity, and a conditional domain-completeness axis), aggregates to 0-100, and decides pass; the generator revises against the critic's findings until the grade clears a threshold or the budget is hit. Both roles may consult the literature (Semantic Scholar + arXiv) to verify domain content (e.g. a pathway figure's gene set, or a benchmark's reported numbers), and conform to / grade against a named journal's figure spec fetched via web search. Not for writing a paper or analyzing a dataset, and not for editing an existing finished image — this renders a figure from data/brief and iterates on it.Science★ 177
- paper-writingfcakyon/phd-skillsUse when the user wants to write, structure, or revise academic paper sections, improve notation consistency, or refine figures and tables. Triggers on phrases like "write the abstract", "structure the methods", "improve this section", "notation consistency", "figure refinement", or "paper structure".Science★ 433
- scientific-writingforyourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-SkillsUse when writing or revising scientific manuscript prose: IMRAD sections, abstracts, figure/table captions, citation-integrated paragraphs, reporting-guideline language, terminology, clarity, and journal-submission text.Science★ 3.8K
- scientific-critical-thinkingK-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skillsEvaluates scientific claims and evidence quality. Applies to experimental design validity, biases and confounders, statistical interpretation, evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), and teaching critical analysis. Supports evidence appraisal and identifying flaws; formal peer review writing belongs to peer-review.Science★ 54.4K
- peer-reviewforyourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-SkillsStructured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.Engineering★ 3.8K
- research-proposalgaasher/Agent-Loop-SkillsUse when the user has a research proposal (problem + proposed methodology + planned experiments) and wants it iteratively strengthened until it clears a passing grade. ScholarEval grades the proposal against the literature (Soundness + Contribution), a Judge scores that feedback 0-100 on a fixed rubric, and a Reviser rewrites the proposal to fix the worst points without diluting the research question; loops until the grade passes or the budget is hit. Not for generating a proposal from scratch, and not for running a literature survey on its own.Science★ 177
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in