Research Paper Writing
RedWoodOG/Hermes-Desktop
End-to-end pipeline for writing ML/AI research papers — from experiment design through analysis, drafting, revision, and submission.
A skill your agent uses when asked to review, edit, or improve the writing quality of a scientific or engineering manuscript.
Install Manuscript Writing Review
$ npx skills add labarba/sciwrite --skill manuscript-writing-review -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install labarba/sciwrite manuscript-writing-review --agent claude-codeProject scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/
Install the "manuscript-writing-review" agent skill from https://github.com/labarba/sciwrite/tree/main into .claude/skills/manuscript-writing-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "manuscript-writing-review", then confirm the skill loads.Claude Code copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add labarba/sciwrite --skill manuscript-writing-review -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install labarba/sciwrite manuscript-writing-review --agent codexProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
Codex skills documentation · loads skills from .agents/skills/
Install the "manuscript-writing-review" agent skill from https://github.com/labarba/sciwrite/tree/main into .agents/skills/manuscript-writing-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "manuscript-writing-review", then confirm the skill loads.Codex copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add labarba/sciwrite --skill manuscript-writing-review -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install labarba/sciwrite manuscript-writing-review --agent cursorProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
Cursor skills documentation · loads skills from .cursor/skills/, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, .codex/skills/
Install the "manuscript-writing-review" agent skill from https://github.com/labarba/sciwrite/tree/main into .cursor/skills/manuscript-writing-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "manuscript-writing-review", then confirm the skill loads.Cursor copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add labarba/sciwrite --skill manuscript-writing-review -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install labarba/sciwrite manuscript-writing-review --agent gemini-cliProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
Gemini CLI skills documentation · loads skills from .gemini/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "manuscript-writing-review" agent skill from https://github.com/labarba/sciwrite/tree/main into .gemini/skills/manuscript-writing-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "manuscript-writing-review", then confirm the skill loads.Gemini CLI copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gh skill install labarba/sciwrite manuscript-writing-reviewInstalls for Copilot at project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Preview a skill first with gh skill preview. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ npx skills add labarba/sciwrite --skill manuscript-writing-review -a github-copilotProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.copilot/skills/.
GitHub Copilot skills documentation · loads skills from .github/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "manuscript-writing-review" agent skill from https://github.com/labarba/sciwrite/tree/main into .github/skills/manuscript-writing-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "manuscript-writing-review", then confirm the skill loads.GitHub Copilot copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add labarba/sciwrite --skill manuscript-writing-review -a opencodeOpenCode documents no install command of its own. Project install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.config/opencode/skills/.
$ gh skill install labarba/sciwrite manuscript-writing-review --agent opencodeProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
OpenCode skills documentation · loads skills from .opencode/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "manuscript-writing-review" agent skill from https://github.com/labarba/sciwrite/tree/main into .opencode/skills/manuscript-writing-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "manuscript-writing-review", then confirm the skill loads.OpenCode copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
Facts
- Skill name
manuscript-writing-review- GitHub stars
- 852
- Token cost
- ~2.4k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 1,165 words
- Files
- 4
- Skills in repo
- 1
- Repo updated
- First seen
- Licence
- CC-BY-4.0
At a glance
A skill your agent uses when asked to review, edit, or improve the writing quality of a scientific or engineering manuscript.
- Works in 3 steps: Spot the pattern: "to-be" verb + past… → Identify the actor: Who performed the… → Reconstruct as Subject–Verb–Object.
- Asked to review
- SKILL.md covers Purpose, Review Modes, The Five Audit Passes and Output Format, plus 2 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
What it does
Manuscript Writing Review is an agent skill from labarba/sciwrite. Use this skill when asked to review, edit, or improve the writing quality of a scientific or engineering manuscript. Triggers include: "review my writing," "check my manuscript," "improve clarity," "clean up the prose," "edit for journal submission," "writing review," or any request to evaluate sentence-level quality, eliminate clutter, fix passive voice, or enforce keyword consistency in a research paper draft. Also triggers when asked to prepare a manuscript for submission to a specific journal. Do NOT use for…
Its SKILL.md is about 2.4k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 3 other files (for example `HOW-TO-USE.md` and `README.md`).
It sits in Research & Science, covering Scientific writing, Citation management and Statistics. The repository describes itself as: Agent Skill for AI-assisted manuscript writing review, based on Dr. Kristin Sainani's "Writing in the Sciences" methodology. The licence is CC-BY-4.0.
When your agent uses it
- Asked to review
- Improve the writing quality of a scientific
- Engineering manuscript
- Include: review my writing
Example prompts
- “review my writing,”
- “check my manuscript,”
- “improve clarity,”
- “/manuscript-writing-review”
Workflow steps
3 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.
- Spot the pattern: "to-be" verb + past participle ("was observed," "were analyzed")
- Identify the actor: Who performed the action? Default to "We" if the authors did it.
- Reconstruct as Subject–Verb–Object.
What it can do on your machine
Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 64b128b. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.
Tool permissions
Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.
From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.
Runs code
No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.
From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.
Network
No URLs in SKILL.md.
From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.
Credentials
Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.
From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.
Context cost
Manuscript Writing Review loads about 2.4k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 159 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,165 words of instructions outside code blocks.
Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.
Safety
Auto-check passed
The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.
Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.
SKILL.md
The full file from labarba/sciwrite at commit 64b128b, republished under its CC-BY-4.0 licence (© labarba). 1,165 words, ~2,443 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/manuscript-writing-review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 3 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.- name
- manuscript-writing-review
- description
- Use this skill when asked to review, edit, or improve the writing quality of a scientific or engineering manuscript. Triggers include: "review my writing," "check my manuscript," "improve clarity," "clean up the prose," "edit for journal submission," "writing review," or any request to evaluate sentence-level quality, eliminate clutter, fix passive voice, or enforce keyword consistency in a research paper draft. Also triggers when asked to prepare a manuscript for submission to a specific journal. Do NOT use for content/technical review of methods or results, statistical analysis, or citation formatting.
Manuscript Writing Review — Scientific Clarity and Precision
Purpose
You are an expert scientific writing reviewer. Your goal is to transform cluttered academic prose into clean, precise, powerful scientific communication. You apply the principles of Dr. Kristin Sainani's "Writing in the Sciences" methodology: every word must earn its place; every sentence must be stripped to its cleanest components.
You do NOT alter scientific content, data, or technical claims. You improve how those claims are delivered.
Review Modes
When the user asks for a writing review, determine which mode to use:
| Mode | Trigger | What you do |
|---|---|---|
| full-review | "review my manuscript," "full writing review" | Run all five audit passes on the entire document, produce a structured report |
| section-review | "review the Introduction," "check the Discussion" | Run all five passes on a single section |
| targeted | "fix passive voice," "clean up clutter" | Run only the relevant audit pass(es) |
| interactive | "walk me through improving this" | Go paragraph by paragraph, showing before/after with explanations |
Default to full-review if ambiguous.
The Five Audit Passes
Apply these sequentially. Each pass focuses on one dimension of writing quality.
Pass 1: Clutter Extraction
Strip every sentence to its cleanest components. Flag and replace:
Dead-weight phrases → concise replacements:
| Cluttered phrase | Replace with |
|---|---|
| Due to the fact that | Because |
| A majority of | Most |
| Are of the same opinion | Agree |
| Give rise to | Cause |
| Have an effect on | Affect |
| In the event that | If |
| At the present time | Now / Currently |
| In order to | To |
| A number of | Several / Many |
| On the basis of | Based on |
| In light of the fact that | Because / Since |
| It is worth noting that | (delete — just state the point) |
| It is important to note that | (delete) |
| It is interesting to note that | (delete) |
| In terms of | (rewrite to be specific) |
Dead-weight introductory phrases — flag for deletion:
- "As it is well known..." → replace with a direct citation
- "It should be emphasized that..."
- "It can be regarded that..."
- "As it has been shown..."
- "It is noteworthy that..."
Redundancy extraction: remove adjectives or adverbs that repeat information already carried by the noun or verb. Examples:
- "successful solutions" → "solutions" (success is inherent)
- "completely eliminate" → "eliminate"
- "future plans" → "plans"
- "unexpected surprise" → "surprise"
- "currently underway" → "underway"
Pass 2: Active Voice and Verb Vitality
Scientific transparency requires accountability. Identify who did what.
Passive → Active conversion protocol:
- Spot the pattern: "to-be" verb + past participle ("was observed," "were analyzed")
- Identify the actor: Who performed the action? Default to "We" if the authors did it.
- Reconstruct as Subject–Verb–Object.
Example:
- Passive: "The activation of channels is induced by the depletion of stores."
- Active: "Depleting stores activates channels."
Nominalization ("smothered verbs") — resurrect the verb:
| Smothered form | Resurrected verb |
|---|---|
| Provides a review of | Reviews |
| Offers a confirmation of | Confirms |
| Shows a peak | Peaks |
| Obtains an estimate of | Estimates |
| Conducts an assessment of | Assesses |
| Provides a description of | Describes |
| Makes an adjustment to | Adjusts |
| Performs an analysis of | Analyzes |
| Achieves a reduction in | Reduces |
Flag every "noun + of" construction and check whether a direct verb exists.
When passive voice is acceptable:
- The actor is genuinely unknown or irrelevant ("The sample was collected in 2019")
- Standard methodological phrasing in Methods sections where journal style requires it
- Deliberate emphasis on the object over the actor
Do NOT mechanically convert every passive sentence. Flag the ones where the passive obscures accountability or the actor.
Pass 3: Sentence Architecture
Buried predicate audit: Count words between subject and main verb. If more than ~12 words intervene, the predicate is buried. Recommend restructuring.
- Buried: "One study of 930 adults with MS receiving care in one of two managed care settings found that..."
- Fixed: "One study found that, among 930 adults with MS in managed care settings, ..."
Punctuation for efficiency:
- Use a colon to set up a list or specific explanation, replacing wordy openings
- Use a dash (—) for emphatic parentheticals or to merge sentences where a transition feels forced
- Use semicolons to link closely related independent clauses, reducing the need for transition words
Sentence length variation: Flag paragraphs where all sentences are roughly the same length (±5 words). Recommend varying rhythm: short declarative sentences for emphasis, longer ones for explanation.
Show full SKILL.md (484 more words)Show less
Pass 4: Keyword Consistency and Terminology
In scientific writing, terminological consistency is a virtue, not a defect.
The Banana Rule: Do not call a "banana" an "elongated yellow fruit" to avoid repetition. If the Methods say "obese group," the Results must not switch to "heavier group." Synonym variation for technical terms forces the reader to wonder whether a new category has been introduced.
Keyword consistency audit:
- Extract all key terms from the Methods (group names, variable names, technique names, abbreviations).
- Verify that the exact same terms appear in Results, Discussion, Tables, and Figure captions.
- Flag every instance where a synonym was substituted for a defined term.
Acronym austerity:
- Flag non-standard acronyms created only for author convenience.
- Permit only universally recognized acronyms (DNA, RNA, CFD, FEM, PIV, etc.).
- Verify that every acronym is defined at first use in the Abstract AND in the main text AND in each Table/Figure legend (readers do not read linearly).
Pass 5: Numerical Consistency and Citation Integrity
Numerical consistency checklist:
- Does the sample size (N) in the Abstract match Table 1?
- Do percentages in Results match the raw numbers in Tables?
- Are significant figures consistent and appropriate for the measurement precision?
- Do Figure graphics match the corresponding Table values?
Citation integrity — the "Telephone Game" audit: Flag any statistic presented as established fact but cited only through secondary sources (reviews, textbooks). Recommend the author verify the primary source. Common pattern: "According to [Review, 2020], the prevalence is 15–62%..." — but the original studies behind those numbers may have very different scopes.
Output Format
For full-review and section-review modes
Produce a structured report with this skeleton:
## Writing Quality Review: [Document/Section Title]
### Summary
[2–3 sentence overall assessment: dominant issues, overall clarity level]
### Pass 1: Clutter — [N issues found]
[List each instance with line/paragraph reference, original text, suggested revision,
and brief rationale]
### Pass 2: Voice and Verbs — [N issues found]
[Same format]
### Pass 3: Sentence Architecture — [N issues found]
[Same format]
### Pass 4: Terminology — [N issues found]
[Same format]
### Pass 5: Numbers and Citations — [N issues found]
[Same format]
### Top 5 Priority Revisions
[The five changes that would most improve the manuscript, ranked by impact]For interactive mode
Go paragraph by paragraph. For each:
- Show the original paragraph
- Show a revised version with all five passes applied
- Explain the key changes made and why
Wait for the user to confirm or adjust before proceeding to the next paragraph.
For targeted mode
Run only the requested pass(es) and report in the same format as above, limited to the relevant section(s).
Severity Levels
Tag each finding with a severity:
- CRITICAL — Actively misleads the reader (wrong number, term inconsistency that implies a different variable, passive voice that hides important accountability)
- MAJOR — Significantly impairs clarity (buried predicates, heavy nominalization, dense clutter)
- MINOR — Worth fixing but does not impede understanding (slight wordiness, optional style improvements)
Constraints
- Never alter scientific content. You improve delivery, not substance. If a claim seems wrong, flag it as a content note but do not change it.
- Respect disciplinary conventions. Some fields expect passive voice in Methods sections; some journals have specific style requirements. Ask about the target journal if not specified.
- Preserve the author's voice. The goal is clarity, not homogeneity. If a sentence is clear and effective despite breaking a "rule," leave it alone.
- Be specific. Every suggestion must include the original text and a concrete revision. Never say "consider improving clarity" without showing how.
© labarba, CC-BY-4.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file
Files
SKILL.md and 3 other files in the repository root of labarba/sciwrite.
- SKILL.md
- HOW-TO-USE.md
- LICENSE
- README.md
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 64b128b
Compare with similar skills
Manuscript Writing Review next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.
| Skill | Stars | Used in | Tokens | Auto-check | Licence | Repo updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manuscript Writing Review this skilllabarba/sciwrite | 852 | — | ~2.4k | Automated safety check: Pass | CC-BY-4.0 | |
| Research Paper WritingRedWoodOG/Hermes-Desktop | 177 | 6 repos | ~16k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| Citation Verification GuideGalaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar | 5.7k | 2 repos | ~1.9k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Citation ManagementK-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer | 2.4k | 2 repos | ~3.9k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| Academic Paper Writing PipelineImbad0202/academic-research-skills | 51k | — | ~16k | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence | |
| Peer ReviewK-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer | 2.4k | 2 repos | ~3.1k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT |
Similar skills
Citation Verification Guide
Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar
Reference guidance for checking every citation in academic writing against canonical sources such as DOI, arXiv, CrossRef and Semantic Scholar, to catch fake or wrong references.
Citation Management
K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer
Finds papers in OpenAlex, PubMed and Google Scholar, turns DOIs, PMIDs and arXiv IDs into clean BibTeX, and validates citations for a manuscript or thesis.
Academic Paper Writing Pipeline
Imbad0202/academic-research-skills
Runs a 12-agent pipeline that plans, drafts, cites, reviews and formats academic papers, with modes for revision, rebuttals, abstracts and citation checks.
Peer Review
K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer
Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments.
Academic Humanizer
AIScientists-Dev/academic-humanizer
Improve the clarity and voice of AI-assisted academic writing (papers, theses, rebuttals) and funding proposals (NSF Project Summary/Description, NIH Specific Aims): preserve scholarly conventions…
Related
Categories
Questions about Manuscript Writing Review
What does Manuscript Writing Review do?
A skill your agent uses when asked to review, edit, or improve the writing quality of a scientific or engineering manuscript. Manuscript Writing Review is an agent skill from labarba/sciwrite. Use this skill when asked to review, edit, or improve the writing quality of a scientific or engineering manuscript.
When should I use Manuscript Writing Review?
Manuscript Writing Review fits situations like: asked to review; improve the writing quality of a scientific; engineering manuscript; include: review my writing.
How do I install Manuscript Writing Review in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add labarba/sciwrite --skill manuscript-writing-review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (the labarba/sciwrite repository) into .claude/skills/manuscript-writing-review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Manuscript Writing Review in Codex?
Run `npx skills add labarba/sciwrite --skill manuscript-writing-review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (the labarba/sciwrite repository) into .agents/skills/manuscript-writing-review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Manuscript Writing Review in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?
Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add labarba/sciwrite --skill manuscript-writing-review -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/manuscript-writing-review, .gemini/skills/manuscript-writing-review, .github/skills/manuscript-writing-review and .opencode/skills/manuscript-writing-review in your project.
What does Manuscript Writing Review need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Manuscript Writing Review is instructions for the agent only.
Does Manuscript Writing Review access the network?
SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.
Is Manuscript Writing Review safe to install?
Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.
What licence does Manuscript Writing Review use?
Manuscript Writing Review is published under the CC-BY-4.0 licence (from the LICENSE file in the skill folder). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.
How many tokens does Manuscript Writing Review use?
About 2.4k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 9.8k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.
What are the alternatives to Manuscript Writing Review?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Manuscript Writing Review: Research Paper Writing (RedWoodOG/Hermes-Desktop, 177 stars), Citation Verification Guide (Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar, 5.7k stars), Citation Management (K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer, 2.4k stars) and Academic Paper Writing Pipeline (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Manuscript Writing Review?
labarba (a GitHub user) maintains it in labarba/sciwrite, which has 852 GitHub stars. The repository was last updated on August 3, 2026.
Source: labarba/sciwrite on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.