Loading...
Loading...
Found 109 Skills
Structures and derives research formulas when the user wants to 推导公式, build a theory line, organize assumptions, turn scattered equations into a coherent derivation, or rewrite theory notes into a paper-ready formula document. Use when the derivation target is not yet fully fixed, the main object still needs to be chosen, or the user needs a coherent derivation package rather than a finished theorem proof.
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.
This skill should be used when the user requests to research topics using FireCrawl, enrich notes with web sources, search and scrape information, or write scientific/academic papers. It extracts research topics from markdown files, creates research documents with scraped sources, generates BibTeX bibliographies from research results, and provides Pandoc/MyST templates for academic writing with citation management.
Bind addressable evidence IDs from `papers/evidence_bank.jsonl` to each subsection (H3), producing `outline/evidence_bindings.jsonl`. **Trigger**: evidence binder, evidence plan, section->evidence mapping, 证据绑定, evidence_id. **Use when**: `papers/evidence_bank.jsonl` exists and you want writer/auditor to use section-scoped evidence items (WebWeaver-style memory bank). **Skip if**: you are not doing evidence-first section-by-section writing. **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: NO PROSE; do not invent evidence; only select from the existing evidence bank.
Systematic review response workflow from comment analysis to professional rebuttal writing. Use when the user asks to "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "draft review response", or "analyze review comments". Improves paper acceptance rates.
Improve academic paper writing quality for ML/CV/NLP-style papers with clear section structure, paragraph flow, and reviewer-facing presentation. Use when drafting or revising Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Method, Experiments, or Conclusion; polishing figures/tables; checking claim-support alignment; or performing self-review before submission.
Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 9-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow.
Add strict Nature/CNS citations to manuscript text by splitting long passages into citable segments, searching only accepted flagship and subjournal titles from Nature Portfolio, the AAAS Science family, and Cell Press, filtering by publication time range, and exporting one reference-manager-ready output by default. Use this skill whenever the user asks to input text and automatically get references, add citations to a paragraph/manuscript, find Nature-series or CNS support for statements, create text-to-reference correspondence, "分段引用", "自动给出引用", "Nature系列引用", "CNS及子刊", "支撑文献", "补引用", "找引用", or export EndNote/RIS/ENW/Zotero RDF.
Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family manuscript revisions. Use when the user provides reviewer comments, editor decision letters, revision notes, response drafts, or asks how to respond to major/minor revision requests, rebuttal letters, response to reviewers, peer-review reports, 审稿意见回复, 逐点回复, 修回信, 大修回复, 小修回复, or 如何回复 reviewer.
9 editing & proofreading skills. Trigger: polishing drafts, academic tone, proofreading, translation. Design: style checkers and editing workflows for clear, concise academic English.
Expert-level research methodology, academic writing, statistical analysis, and scientific investigation
Use this when the user explicitly requests to "verify/optimize in-text citations of the `{topic}_review.tex` review" or to "run check-review-alignment". Use the host AI's semantic understanding to verify each citation against the literature content one by one. **Only when fatal citation errors are found**, make minimal rewrites to the "sentences containing citations", and reuse the rendering script of `systematic-literature-review` to output PDF/Word (the script does not directly call the LLM API locally). Core principle: **Do not modify for the sake of modifying**. When it is uncertain whether it is a fatal error, keep the original content and issue a warning in the report. ⚠️ Not applicable in the following cases: - The user only wants to generate the main body of a systematic review (should use systematic-literature-review) - The user only wants to add/verify BibTeX entries (should use a dedicated bib management process)