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
- Common: line 77
If revising or reviewing, read the existing draft in full first.
- Very specific: line 83
ACQUIRE: read resources/sentence-structure-reference.md, academic-verb-tiers.md, and hedging-guide.md only for the patterns relevant to the …
- Common: line 84
ACT: write or revise prose with sentence variety, accurate verb choice, evidence-matched hedging, clear paragraphing, and direct statements.
- Common: line 86
FINALIZE: read-aloud test, cohesion check, specificity audit, word-count verification, paragraph-length variation, rhythm check.
- Common: line 89
If a rubric line is ambiguous → quote it back to the user and ask for interpretation.
- Very specific: line 90
If a claim cannot be supported by available evidence → weaken with hedging or remove.
- Very specific: line 91
If the target language is non-English → finish the English pass, then hand off to oma-translation.
- Common: line 92
If the same anti-AI flag survives one fix attempt → restructure the surrounding two sentences instead of word-substitution alone.
- Common: line 93
If an output mode mismatch is detected (e.g., user asked for review but supplied a fresh prompt) → confirm the mode before producing output.
- Very specific: line 161
Does not modify resources/ reference files.
- Very specific: line 162
Does not fetch external citations.
- Common: line 166
Every sentence must be verifiable.
- Common: line 168
Never combine distinct rules to invent a new constraint.
- Distinctive: line 170
Never place 3+ sentences of the same structural type consecutively.
- Very specific: line 172
Never cluster 3+ flagged AI-vocabulary items in a single paragraph.
- Common: line 174
Every claim must map to evidence in the Claim-Evidence Map.
- Common: line 175
Read aloud before emit; if a sentence does not flow naturally, restructure it.
“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.
Files
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-translationfor the target language after drafting in English
Expected inputs
mode: one ofdraft|revise|reviewrubric_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 forreviseandreviewsource_data: available evidence, figures, citations the writer may usetarget_register: defaults to formal academic English with American spelling (en-US)
Expected outputs
draftmode: section heading + drafted prose + Writing Notes (sentence mix, key verbs, anti-AI flags resolved, paragraph lengths) + Claim-Evidence Maprevisemode: original block, revised block, list of specific changes (verb upgrades, structure variation, anti-AI fixes)reviewmode: 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 checksresources/sentence-structure-reference.md: four sentence types, length targets, common errorsresources/academic-verb-tiers.md: meaning- and evidence-based verb guidanceresources/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:
draftvsrevisevsreviewproduce 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-translationafter the English pass - Iterative AUDIT: every fix loops back through the anti-AI checklist before emit
Structural Flow
Entry
- Identify the mode (
draft,revise,review) and the rubric source. - Quote the exact constraint text (word limits, structural requirements, mandatory sections, rubric rows) before applying any rule.
- If revising or reviewing, read the existing draft in full first; if drafting, confirm available source data and citations.
- Index
resources/and identify any claims that need a more precise verb or hedge. - Apply the literal-first principle before any drafting: prefer direct statement over metaphor and flourish. When a literal phrase is available, use it.
Scenes
- PREPARE: load rubric, existing draft, source data; record quoted constraints and note claims whose verbs or hedges need attention.
- ACQUIRE: read
resources/sentence-structure-reference.md,academic-verb-tiers.md, andhedging-guide.mdonly for the patterns relevant to the current section. - 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.
- 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. - 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
| Failure | Recovery |
| Word count over / under target | Cut filler adverbs and redundant qualifiers, or expand with supporting evidence; re-run audit |
| Prose still sounds AI-generated after one pass | Vary sentence openers (subject, adverbial, participial, prepositional) and insert one short (≤10-word) sentence per paragraph; re-run audit |
| Rubric requirement unclear | Quote exact rubric text and ask user; do not combine rules |
| Claim lacks evidence | Add citation, hedge to match weaker evidence, or remove the claim entirely |
| Hedging miscalibrated | Replace double hedges; align hedge strength with resources/hedging-guide.md evidence-level table |
| Verb is vague | Name the action, method, result, or evidence only if that makes the claim clearer |
| Paragraph blocks are uniform 4–5 sentences | Insert 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 citationmarkers 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
| Action | SSL primitive | Evidence |
| Read rubric / constraint and quote literal text | READ | Rubric file or assignment brief |
| Read existing draft (revise/review modes) | READ | Draft file or inline text |
| Index resources for the current section | READ | resources/{anti-ai-checklist,sentence-structure-reference,academic-verb-tiers,hedging-guide}.md |
| Select sentence mix and evidence-appropriate wording | SELECT | Sentence-structure and verb guidance |
| Plan paragraph as Topic-Support-Conclude | INFER | Outline notes |
| Draft / revise prose under all four protocols | WRITE | Generated prose |
| Audit prose against anti-AI checklist | VALIDATE | resources/anti-ai-checklist.md |
| Reverse outline + build Claim-Evidence Map | VALIDATE | Mapping table |
| Weaken or remove unsupported claims | WRITE | Revised claim line |
| Compare original vs revised (revise mode) | COMPARE | Diff block |
| Hand off non-English target | NOTIFY | oma-translation |
| Hand off citation gap | NOTIFY | oma-scholar |
| Hand off ambiguous rubric / spec | NOTIFY | oma-pm |
| Emit per mode output format | WRITE | Final artifact |
| Report compliance status | NOTIFY | PASS/FAIL summary or Writing Notes block |
Tools and instruments
Read/Edit/Writefor draft and rubric filesresources/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
- READ rubric/draft and quote the exact literal constraint text; pin word limits, mandatory sections, and rubric rows.
- PLAN each paragraph as Topic-Support-Conclude; identify where evidence strength or a vague claim calls for a more precise verb.
- DRAFT prose with sentence variety, clear verb choice, hedging, and Topic-Support-Conclude structure.
- AUDIT the draft against
resources/anti-ai-checklist.md(banned vocabulary clusters, banned structural patterns, mannered prose, sentence-level checks) and fix every flag. - REVERSE-OUTLINE the section and build the Claim-Evidence Map; weaken or remove any unsupported claim.
- POLISH with read-aloud, cohesion, specificity, word-count, rhythm, and paragraph-length-variation checks; emit in the mode's output format.
Resource scope
| Scope | Resource target |
LOCAL_FS | Rubric, existing draft, generated prose output |
CODEBASE | resources/ 4 reference files, _shared/core/{context-loading,quality-principles}.md |
MEMORY | Mode, 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-translationhandoff. - 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-scholarwhen discovery is required. - May NOTIFY adjacent skills but does not auto-spawn them; user or workflow drives the actual handoff.
Guardrails
- Every sentence must be verifiable; never fabricate data, statistics, or citations.
- Quote-before-judgment: cite the literal constraint or rubric text before applying any rule.
- Never combine distinct rules to invent a new constraint; apply rules exactly as written.
- 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.
- Never place 3+ sentences of the same structural type consecutively; vary length (short 8–15, medium 16–25, long 26–40 words) and openers.
- Match hedge strength to evidence strength per
hedging-guide.md; never use absolute claim words (definitely,clearly,obviously) outside mathematical facts; never first-personI think/I believe. - Never cluster 3+ flagged AI-vocabulary items in a single paragraph; never insert promotional or inflated language; never append superficial
-ingclauses for analysis. - 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). - Every claim must map to evidence in the Claim-Evidence Map; weaken or remove unsupported claims rather than emit them.
- Read aloud before emit; if a sentence does not flow naturally, restructure it.
- Prefer literal statement over mannered prose. Mannered prose substitutes metaphor and flourish for direct statement (e.g.,
a dial worth turningfora parameter worth varying,this point earns its keepforthis 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
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 3
- first-fluke/oh-my-ag★ 1.3k77% same
- first-fluke/oh-my-agent★ 1.3k77% same
- first-fluke/fullstack-starter★ 22377% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository115 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/backend.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/commit.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/database.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/debug.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/design.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/dev-workflow.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/frontend.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/i18n-arb.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/i18n-guide.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/infrastructure.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/market.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/mobile.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/quality.mdcCursor rule
- beadsSkill
- gitnexus-area-adaptersSkill
- gitnexus-area-cliSkill
- gitnexus-area-contextSkill
- gitnexus-area-dashboardSkill
- gitnexus-area-detectorsSkill
- gitnexus-area-engineSkill
- gitnexus-area-enrichmentSkill
- gitnexus-area-hooksSkill
- gitnexus-area-installerSkill
- gitnexus-area-integrationSkill
- gitnexus-area-lintSkill
- gitnexus-area-payloadsSkill
- gitnexus-area-project-indexSkill
- gitnexus-area-resourcesSkill
- gitnexus-area-rules-2Skill
- gitnexus-area-rulesSkill
- gitnexus-area-scriptsSkill
- gitnexus-area-test-smellsSkill
- gitnexus-area-testsSkill
- gitnexus-area-uiSkill
- gitnexus-cliSkill
- gitnexus-debuggingSkill
- gitnexus-exploringSkill
- gitnexus-guideSkill
- gitnexus-impact-analysisSkill
- gitnexus-refactoringSkill
- impeccableSkill
- oma-architectureSkill
- oma-backendSkill
- oma-brainstormSkill
- oma-coordinationSkill
- oma-dbSkill
- oma-debugSkill
- oma-deepsecSkill
- oma-designSkill
- oma-dev-workflowSkill
- oma-docsSkill
- oma-explanationSkill
- oma-frontendSkill
- oma-hwpSkill
- oma-imageSkill
- oma-marketSkill
- oma-mobileSkill
- oma-observabilitySkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
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.

