nature-writing

name nature-writing description Draft, restructure, or plan Nature-style manuscript sections from author-provided claims, results, figures, notes, or Chinese drafts. Use when the user wants to write or rebuild an abstract, introduction, results narrative, discussion, conclusion, title, or full manuscript argument rather than only polish finished prose. version 0.2.0 author Community contribution based on curated Nature/Nature Communications writing patterns and open research-writing notes Nature-Style Scientific Writing Use this skill when the user needs help creating or rebuilding manuscript prose, not merely polishing existing sentences. Core stance Author evidence comes first. Do not invent results, mechanisms, references, methods, novelty, sample sizes, statistics or limitations. Write the argument before writing the sentences. Make the paper easy to judge: relevance, novelty, trust, reuse and meaning. Use ambitious but bounded claims. If essential evidence is missing, write a placeholder or ask for the missing input instead of filling the gap. When to open extra files 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 Intake Before drafting, identify: manuscript section: title, abstract, introduction, results, discussion, conclusion, significance paragraph or full outline paper type: mechanism, method, resource, device, model, clinical, materials, computational or interdisciplinary core claim: what the paper actually demonstrates evidence: figures, measurements, comparisons, datasets, statistics or examples boundary: where the claim stops target journal or word limit, if provided If any of core claim , evidence or boundary is absent, expose the gap before drafting. You may still produce a scaffold with explicit placeholders. Writing workflow Build a one-sentence argument: In [system/problem], we show [advance] using [approach], supported by [evidence], with [boundary]. Choose the section architecture from references/article-architecture.md . Map each paragraph to one job: context, gap, approach, result, comparison, mechanism, implication or limitation. Draft from evidence outward. Keep claims near the data that support them. Calibrate verbs: show , demonstrate , suggest , indicate , enable , may , could . Remove unsupported novelty and universal claims. Run a paragraph-flow check: one paragraph, one message, with a clear first sentence and explicit sentence-to-sentence relation. Return prose plus concise notes on assumptions and missing inputs. Section defaults Abstract 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 -> contribution challenge -> insight -> contribution multiple contributions Keep it compact. Include quantitative or comparative detail when the user provided it. End with what the work enables, not generic importance. Introduction 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. Results narrative 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. Related Work Use: topic scope -> representative methods -> limitation tied to this paper -> distinction Group prior work by technical topic and mechanism, not by publication year. Discussion 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. Conclusion Use: contribution -> decisive evidence -> implication -> boundary No new data. No unsupported promises. Title Prefer concrete titles that combine: system/object + action/capability + application or consequence Avoid slogan titles, grant-style aims and overbroad field claims. Output format 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.