scientific-writer
De la autor
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.
Instalare
npx skills add gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills --skill scientific-writer -a claude-code
Se instalează în .claude/skills/scientific-writer/ · Fiecare comandă descarcă skill-ul direct de pe GitHub cu utilitarul open source skills.
Identic octet cu octet cu commit-ul scanat, cu licența depozitului și un fișier SOURCE.txt.
Vrei ca agentul să-ți propună skill-uri în timp ce scrii? Vezi cum folosești skill-urile din IDE.
Verificări de siguranță pe SKILL.md
Niciun avertisment.
De ce 80
aiqbench calculează scorul de încredere din semnale publice. Nu este un audit de securitate, așa că citește un skill înainte să-l instalezi.
Skill-uri similare
Cele mai apropiate de acesta prin ce fac și când sunt folosite.
- 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.Știință★ 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".Știință★ 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.Știință★ 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.Știință★ 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.Inginerie★ 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.Știință★ 177
Note și recenzii
—
nicio recenzie
Ai încercat acest skill? Notează-l ca să-i ajuți pe alții. Autentifică-te
Discuție
Intră în discuție. Autentifică-te