agentleFS
vasceannievasceannie/slopgate/.agents/skills/oma-academic-writing/SKILL.md

oma-academic-writing

Skill1 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub

Academic writing capability for publication-grade English prose.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

17 rules. 10 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • 10

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    If revising or reviewing, read the existing draft in full first.

    line 77
  2. Very specific:

    ACQUIRE: read resources/sentence-structure-reference.md, academic-verb-tiers.md, and hedging-guide.md only for the patterns relevant to the …

    line 83
  3. Common:

    ACT: write or revise prose with sentence variety, accurate verb choice, evidence-matched hedging, clear paragraphing, and direct statements.

    line 84
  4. Common:

    FINALIZE: read-aloud test, cohesion check, specificity audit, word-count verification, paragraph-length variation, rhythm check.

    line 86
  5. Common:

    If a rubric line is ambiguous → quote it back to the user and ask for interpretation.

    line 89
  6. Very specific:

    If a claim cannot be supported by available evidence → weaken with hedging or remove.

    line 90
  7. Very specific:

    If the target language is non-English → finish the English pass, then hand off to oma-translation.

    line 91
  8. Common:

    If the same anti-AI flag survives one fix attempt → restructure the surrounding two sentences instead of word-substitution alone.

    line 92
  9. Common:

    If an output mode mismatch is detected (e.g., user asked for review but supplied a fresh prompt) → confirm the mode before producing output.

    line 93
  10. Very specific:

    Does not modify resources/ reference files.

    line 161
  11. Very specific:

    Does not fetch external citations.

    line 162
  12. Common:

    Every sentence must be verifiable.

    line 166
  13. Common:

    Never combine distinct rules to invent a new constraint.

    line 168
  14. Distinctive:

    Never place 3+ sentences of the same structural type consecutively.

    line 170
  15. Very specific:

    Never cluster 3+ flagged AI-vocabulary items in a single paragraph.

    line 172
  16. Common:

    Every claim must map to evidence in the Claim-Evidence Map.

    line 174
  17. Common:

    Read aloud before emit; if a sentence does not flow naturally, restructure it.

    line 175

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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
  • rubric_or_constraint: assignment brief, rubric file, or word/structure limits (path or inline text)
  • 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

  • resources/anti-ai-checklist.md: banned vocabulary, banned structural patterns, sentence-level checks
  • resources/sentence-structure-reference.md: four sentence types, length targets, common errors
  • resources/academic-verb-tiers.md: meaning- and evidence-based verb guidance
  • resources/hedging-guide.md: calibrated certainty expressions matched to evidence strength
  • ../_shared/core/context-loading.md: task-relevant resource loading
  • ../_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-quote gate: refuses to apply a rule until the literal constraint text is quoted from the source
  • 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. Quote the exact constraint text (word limits, structural requirements, mandatory sections, rubric rows) before applying any rule.
  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: audit against resources/anti-ai-checklist.md (vocabulary clusters, structural patterns, mannered prose §11, sentence-level checks); apply reverse outlining and build the Claim-Evidence Map; weaken or remove unsupported claims.
  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

FailureRecovery
Word count over / under targetCut filler adverbs and redundant qualifiers, or expand with supporting evidence; re-run audit
Prose still sounds AI-generated after one passVary sentence openers (subject, adverbial, participial, prepositional) and insert one short (≤10-word) sentence per paragraph; re-run audit
Rubric requirement unclearQuote exact rubric text and ask user; do not combine rules
Claim lacks evidenceAdd citation, hedge to match weaker evidence, or remove the claim entirely
Hedging miscalibratedReplace double hedges; align hedge strength with resources/hedging-guide.md evidence-level table
Verb is vagueName the action, method, result, or evidence only if that makes the claim clearer
Paragraph blocks are uniform 4–5 sentencesInsert a 2-sentence emphasis paragraph; re-run rhythm check

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: refuse to emit and report the blocking ambiguity (rubric quote missing, source data absent, contradictory constraints).

Logical Operations

Actions

ActionSSL primitiveEvidence
Read rubric / constraint and quote literal textREADRubric file or assignment brief
Read existing draft (revise/review modes)READDraft file or inline text
Index resources for the current sectionREADresources/{anti-ai-checklist,sentence-structure-reference,academic-verb-tiers,hedging-guide}.md
Select sentence mix and evidence-appropriate wordingSELECTSentence-structure and verb guidance
Plan paragraph as Topic-Support-ConcludeINFEROutline notes
Draft / revise prose under all four protocolsWRITEGenerated prose
Audit prose against anti-AI checklistVALIDATEresources/anti-ai-checklist.md
Reverse outline + build Claim-Evidence MapVALIDATEMapping table
Weaken or remove unsupported claimsWRITERevised claim line
Compare original vs revised (revise mode)COMPAREDiff block
Hand off non-English targetNOTIFYoma-translation
Hand off citation gapNOTIFYoma-scholar
Hand off ambiguous rubric / specNOTIFYoma-pm
Emit per mode output formatWRITEFinal artifact
Report compliance statusNOTIFYPASS/FAIL summary or Writing Notes block

Tools and instruments

  • Read / Edit / Write for draft and rubric files
  • resources/anti-ai-checklist.md, sentence-structure-reference.md, academic-verb-tiers.md, hedging-guide.md
  • Topic-Support-Conclude paragraph template (inline)
  • Claim-Evidence Map (inline 3-column table: Claim / Evidence / Status)
  • Output-format blocks per mode (Draft / Revision / Review)

Canonical workflow path

  1. READ rubric/draft and quote the exact literal constraint text; pin word limits, mandatory sections, and rubric rows.
  2. PLAN each paragraph as Topic-Support-Conclude; identify where evidence strength or a vague claim calls for a more precise verb.
  3. DRAFT prose with sentence variety, clear verb choice, hedging, and Topic-Support-Conclude structure.
  4. AUDIT the draft against resources/anti-ai-checklist.md (banned vocabulary clusters, banned structural patterns, mannered prose, sentence-level checks) and fix every flag.
  5. REVERSE-OUTLINE the section and build the Claim-Evidence Map; weaken or remove any unsupported claim.
  6. POLISH with read-aloud, cohesion, specificity, word-count, rhythm, and paragraph-length-variation checks; emit in the mode's output format.

Resource scope

ScopeResource target
LOCAL_FSRubric, existing draft, generated prose output
CODEBASEresources/ 4 reference files, _shared/core/{context-loading,quality-principles}.md
MEMORYMode, quoted constraints, wording decisions, anti-AI flags resolved, Claim-Evidence Map

Preconditions

  • A rubric / constraint or an existing draft (or both) is provided.
  • The target register is academic English. If the final deliverable is non-English, the user has agreed to a downstream oma-translation handoff.
  • The source data needed to support claims is available, or unsupported claims are explicitly allowed to be weakened or removed.

Effects and side effects

  • Writes drafted, revised, or reviewed prose to the user's working location (file or inline).
  • Does not modify resources/ reference files.
  • Does not fetch external citations; defers to oma-scholar when discovery is required.
  • May NOTIFY adjacent skills but does not auto-spawn them; user or workflow drives the actual handoff.

Guardrails

  1. Every sentence must be verifiable; never fabricate data, statistics, or citations.
  2. Quote-before-judgment: cite the literal constraint or rubric text before applying any rule.
  3. Never combine distinct rules to invent a new constraint; apply rules exactly as written.
  4. Choose verbs for their exact meaning and support. Keep common verbs when they are accurate and natural; replace a vague verb only when the new wording states a relevant distinction without inflating the claim.
  5. Never place 3+ sentences of the same structural type consecutively; vary length (short 8–15, medium 16–25, long 26–40 words) and openers.
  6. Match hedge strength to evidence strength per hedging-guide.md; never use absolute claim words (definitely, clearly, obviously) outside mathematical facts; never first-person I think / I believe.
  7. Never cluster 3+ flagged AI-vocabulary items in a single paragraph; never insert promotional or inflated language; never append superficial -ing clauses for analysis.
  8. Em dashes ≤ 1 per paragraph; semicolons ≤ 2 per 1000 words; sentence-case headers; no didactic disclaimers (It is important to note) or summary phrases (In summary, Overall).
  9. Every claim must map to evidence in the Claim-Evidence Map; weaken or remove unsupported claims rather than emit them.
  10. Read aloud before emit; if a sentence does not flow naturally, restructure it.
  11. Prefer literal statement over mannered prose. Mannered prose substitutes metaphor and flourish for direct statement (e.g., a dial worth turning for a parameter worth varying, this point earns its keep for this point still matters). It makes the reader work harder so the writer can perform, and it is imprecise because metaphors drag in uncontrolled connotations. When a literal phrase is available, use it.

References

  • Anti-AI checklist: resources/anti-ai-checklist.md
  • Sentence-structure reference: resources/sentence-structure-reference.md
  • Academic verb tiers: resources/academic-verb-tiers.md
  • Hedging guide: resources/hedging-guide.md
  • Shared context loading: ../_shared/core/context-loading.md
  • Shared quality principles: ../_shared/core/quality-principles.md

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.