Oma Academic Writing

Academic Writing: Publication-Grade English Prose

Scheduling

Goal

Produce, revise, and audit publication-grade academic English prose so that every output simultaneously satisfies the Sentence Structure Protocol, Verb Protocol, Hedging Protocol, and Anti-AI Compliance Checklist, with every claim mapped to verifiable evidence.

Intent signature

• "draft this essay / report / executive summary / conclusion / literature review"
• "rewrite this paragraph in academic English"
• "polish this draft to top-band quality" / "revise to match the rubric"
• "run an anti-AI audit on this prose"
• "check sentence structure variety" / "fix monotonous rhythm"
• "the prose sounds AI-generated, make it pass"
• "verify claims against evidence" / "reverse outline this section"

When to use

• Drafting or revising academic reports, essays, or analysis sections
• Writing executive summaries, conclusions, or literature reviews
• Rewriting AI-sounding prose into natural academic English
• Polishing draft text to achieve top-band rubric quality (HD, A, top-band, etc.)
• Reviewing prose for sentence variety, verb quality, hedging, and anti-AI compliance
• Any task requiring formal academic English output bound by a rubric

When NOT to use

• Translation tasks → use oma-translation
• Source discovery, citation gathering, or scholarly literature search → use oma-scholar
• Rubric / assignment-spec parsing and task decomposition → use oma-pm
• Code documentation, README, or API reference text → use the relevant domain skill (oma-frontend, oma-backend, oma-mobile, oma-db, etc.)
• Informal communication, chat, or marketing copy → no skill needed
• Non-English academic writing → call oma-translation for the target language after drafting in English

Expected inputs

• mode: one of draft | revise | review
• Optional rubric_or_constraint: assignment brief, rubric file, or word/structure limits (path or inline text); draft-only revision/review does not require a rubric
• existing_draft: prior text to revise or audit (path or inline text); required for revise and review
• source_data: available evidence, figures, citations the writer may use
• target_register: defaults to formal academic English with American spelling (en-US)

Expected outputs

• draft mode: section heading + drafted prose + Writing Notes (sentence mix, key verbs, anti-AI flags resolved, paragraph lengths) + Claim-Evidence Map
• revise mode: original block, revised block, list of specific changes (verb upgrades, structure variation, anti-AI fixes)
• review mode: PASS/FAIL Compliance Report across Sentence Structure, Verb Quality, Anti-AI, Specificity, Hedging, Paragraph Clarity, Rhythm/Burstiness, Claim-Evidence Alignment, plus recommended fixes

Dependencies

• references/_shared/core/anti-ai-prose.md and resources/anti-ai-checklist.md: common diagnostics and academic constraints; load together for prose audits
• resources/sentence-structure-reference.md: four sentence types, contextual rhythm guidance, common errors
• resources/academic-verb-tiers.md: meaning- and evidence-based verb guidance
• resources/hedging-guide.md: calibrated certainty expressions matched to evidence strength
• references/_shared/core/context-loading.md: task-relevant resource loading
• references/_shared/core/quality-principles.md: shared quality bar

Control-flow features

• Mode branching: draft vs revise vs review produce different output formats and pass sequences
• Rubric constraints: quote supplied assignment requirements before applying them; draft-only revision/review can proceed without inventing a rubric
• Citation gap branch: when a claim lacks evidence, weaken or remove rather than fabricate; optionally hand off to oma-scholar
• Language branch: non-English target hands off to oma-translation after the English pass
• Iterative AUDIT: every fix loops back through the anti-AI checklist before emit

Structural Flow

Entry

1. Identify the mode (draft, revise, review) and the rubric source.
2. If assignment constraints were supplied, quote their exact text before applying them. Without a rubric, revise/review the draft using the requested register and evidence; do not invent assignment rules.
3. If revising or reviewing, read the existing draft in full first; if drafting, confirm available source data and citations.
4. Index resources/ and identify any claims that need a more precise verb or hedge.
5. Apply the literal-first principle before any drafting: prefer direct statement over metaphor and flourish. When a literal phrase is available, use it.

Scenes

1. PREPARE: load rubric, existing draft, source data; record quoted constraints and note claims whose verbs or hedges need attention.
2. ACQUIRE: read resources/sentence-structure-reference.md, academic-verb-tiers.md, and hedging-guide.md only for the patterns relevant to the current section.
3. ACT: write or revise prose with sentence variety, accurate verb choice, evidence-matched hedging, clear paragraphing, and direct statements. Keep a common verb when it is the clearest accurate choice.
4. VERIFY: apply the shared prose diagnostics and academic checklist; use reverse outlining and the Claim-Evidence Map to identify unsupported claims. In review mode, report findings without rewriting the draft.
5. FINALIZE: read-aloud test, cohesion check, specificity audit, word-count verification, paragraph-length variation, rhythm check; emit per the mode's output format.

Transitions

• If a rubric line is ambiguous → quote it back to the user and ask for interpretation; do not infer combined rules.
• If a claim cannot be supported by available evidence → weaken with hedging or remove; if a citation gap is structural, NOTIFY oma-scholar.
• If the target language is non-English → finish the English pass, then hand off to oma-translation.
• If the same anti-AI flag survives one fix attempt → restructure the surrounding two sentences instead of word-substitution alone.
• If an output mode mismatch is detected (e.g., user asked for review but supplied a fresh prompt) → confirm the mode before producing output.

Failure and recovery

Exit

• Success: every protocol PASSes, the Claim-Evidence Map has no unsupported entries, word count complies, and the mode-specific output format is fully populated.
• Partial success: emit prose with explicit needs evidence / pending citation markers and report which protocol items remain at risk; flag handoff candidates.
• Failure: report a material blocker such as required source data being unavailable or contradictory supplied constraints. The absence of an optional rubric alone does not block draft-only revision/review.

Logical Operations