Skip to content
Agentmart
Submit a tool

nature-writing

Draft, restructure, or plan Nature-style manuscript sections from author-provided claims, results, figures, notes, or Chinese drafts.

Skill by Galaxy-Dawn

IndexedMIT★ 5,894
Write a review

Chalk Labs

Need help deploying nature-writing?

Chalk Labs sets up agents like this inside real teams: connected to your tools, tested on your data, with a human in the loop where it matters.

Book a call

Install

Works with Claude Code, Claude apps, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, VS Code, OpenCode, Goose, Windsurf. Read the repository before you give any tool access to your data.

npx agentmarket install skill/galaxy-dawn-nature-writing

Asks which of your tools to add it to (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, Gemini CLI, Claude Desktop) and shows the change first. See https://agentmart.dev/cli.

Get the weekly diff

The weekly diff: one email a week with new agent tools, notable updates and grade changes, plus security alerts for tools you follow. Double opt-in, one-click unsubscribe.

We use your email only for this newsletter. Privacy

About

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.

Use cases: writing, productivity, writing-editing

No reviews yet. Installed it? Reviews come from verified installers only. How reviews work

Permissions

What this skill can do and what it asks for, from its SKILL.md. Checked Oct 25, 2026.

Tools
No tools found
Secrets
None asked for
Install scripts
None found

Network hosts it talks to 1

  • codeload.github.com · found in install command

Files it touches

  • ~/.claude/skills/nature-writing

What's inside

Skill name
nature-writing
Description
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.
License
MIT
Instructions
164 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub

Files (42)

  • README.md
  • SKILL.md
  • openai.yaml · agents/
  • abstract.md · references/
  • article-architecture.md · references/
  • chinese-author-workflow.md · references/
  • conclusion.md · references/
  • abstract-examples.md · references/examples/
  • template-a.md · references/examples/abstract/
  • template-b.md · references/examples/abstract/
  • template-c.md · references/examples/abstract/
  • index.md · references/examples/
  • introduction-examples.md · references/examples/
  • novel-task-challenge-decomposition.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • pipeline-not-recommended-abstract-only.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • pipeline-version-1-one-contribution-multi-advantages.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • pipeline-version-2-two-contributions.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • pipeline-version-3-new-module-on-existing-pipeline.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • pipeline-version-4-observation-driven.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • technical-challenge-version-1-existing-task.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • technical-challenge-version-2-existing-task-insight-backed-by-traditional.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • technical-challenge-version-3-novel-task.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • version-1-task-then-application.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • version-2-application-first.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • version-3-general-to-specific-setting.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • version-4-open-with-challenge.md · references/examples/introduction/
  • method-examples.md · references/examples/
  • example-of-the-three-elements.md · references/examples/method/
  • method-writing-common-issues-note.md · references/examples/method/
  • module-design-instant-ngp.md · references/examples/method/
  • module-motivation-patterns.md · references/examples/method/
  • module-triad-neural-body.md · references/examples/method/
  • neural-body-annotated-figure-text.md · references/examples/method/
  • overview-template.md · references/examples/method/
  • pre-writing-questions.md · references/examples/method/
  • section-skeleton.md · references/examples/method/
  • experiments.md · references/
  • introduction.md · references/
  • method.md · references/
  • paper-review.md · references/
  • paragraph-flow.md · references/
  • related-work.md · references/

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Nature-Style Scientific Writing

Use this skill when the user needs help creating or rebuilding manuscript prose,
not merely polishing existing sentences.

## Core stance

- Author evidence comes first. Do not invent results, mechanisms, references,
  methods, novelty, sample sizes, statistics or limitations.
- Write the argument before writing the sentences.
- Make the paper easy to judge: relevance, novelty, trust, reuse and meaning.
- Use ambitious but bounded claims.
- If essential evidence is missing, write a placeholder or ask for the missing
  input instead of filling the gap.

## Mined writing memory

Before drafting or restructuring academic prose, check the active installed
`skills/ml-paper-writing/references/knowledge/paper-miner-writing-memory.md`
under the current client's skill home. Read only entries relevant to this paper's
section, article type, and venue. Use mined patterns for structure and wording
ideas, while grounding every claim in the author's evidence and the target
journal's requirements. Do not copy source phrasing. If the memory is absent or
has no relevant entries, continue with this skill's references.

## When to open extra files

| File | Open when |
|---|---|
| [references/article-architecture.md](references/article-architecture.md) | You need section-level structure, argument order, or published-article writing patterns |
| [references/abstract.md](references/abstract.md) | Drafting or revising an abstract, especially challenge-contribution and challenge-insight-contribution forms |
| [references/introduction.md](references/introduction.md) | Drafting or revising an Introduction, task framing, technical challenge, contribution framing, or teaser/pipeline logic |
| [references/related-work.md](references/related-work.md) | Rebuilding Related Work as topic synthesis instead of a paper-by-paper list |
| [references/method.md](references/method.md) | Writing Method sections, pipeline modules, module motivation, technical advantages, or implementation details |
| [references/experiments.md](references/experiments.md) | Planning or writing Experiments/Results around baselines, ablations, metrics, tables, figures, and claim support |
| [references/conclusion.md](references/conclusion.md) | Writing a bounded conclusion with contribution, evidence, impact, limitation, and future direction |
| [references/paragraph-flow.md](references/paragraph-flow.md) | User asks whether a paragraph flows, makes sense, or is clear; use reverse outlining and paragraph-message checks |
| [references/paper-review.md](references/paper-review.md) | Final manuscript self-review, rejection-risk audit, claim-evidence alignment, or reviewer-facing critique |
| [references/chinese-author-workflow.md](references/chinese-author-workflow.md) | The user's notes are Chinese, mixed Chinese-English, or organized as lab notes rather than manuscript prose |
| [references/examples/index.md](references/examples/index.md) | You need concrete abstract, introduction, or method examples after choosing the relevant guide |

## Intake

Before drafting, identify:

- manuscript section: title, abstract, introduction, results, discussion,
  conclusion, significance paragraph or full outline
- paper type: mechanism, method, resource, device, model, clinical, materials,
  computational or interdisciplinary
- core claim: what the paper actually demonstrates
- evidence: figures, measurements, comparisons, datasets, statistics or examples
- boundary: where the claim stops
- target journal or word limit, if provided

If any of `core claim`, `evidence` or `boundary` is absent, expose the gap before
drafting. You may still produce a scaffold with explicit placeholders.

## Writing workflow

1. Build a one-sentence argument: `In [system/problem], we show [advance] using
   [approach], supported by [evidence], with [boundary].`
2. Choose the section architecture from `references/article-architecture.md`.
3. Map each paragraph to one job: context, gap, approach, result, comparison,
   mechanism, implication or limitation.
4. Draft from evidence outward. Keep claims near the data that support them.
5. Calibrate verbs: `show`, `demonstrate`, `suggest`, `indicate`, `enable`,
   `may`, `could`.
6. Remove unsupported novelty and universal claims.
7. Run a paragraph-flow check: one paragraph, one message, with a clear first
   sentence and explicit sentence-to-sentence relation.
8. Return prose plus concise notes on assumptions and missing inputs.

## Section defaults

### Abstract

Default Nature pattern:

`context/problem -> gap -> approach -> key result -> implication -> boundary`

For technical AI, ML, CV or method-heavy manuscripts, open
`references/abstract.md` and choose one of:

- `challenge -> contribution`
- `challenge -> insight -> contribution`
- `multiple contributions`

Keep it compact. Include quantitative or comparative detail when the user
provided it. End with what the work enables, not generic importance.

### Introduction

Use:

`field scale -> bottleneck -> prior attempts -> unresolved gap -> present study`

For method-heavy papers, open `references/introduction.md` and reason backward
from the technical challenge and contribution before drafting forward.

Do not summarize all results. The final paragraph should state what this paper
does and how it addresses the gap.

### Results narrative

Use an evidence ladder:

`system/workflow -> validation -> main result -> baseline comparison ->
mechanism/diagnostic analysis -> application or generalization`

Each subsection should have a claim-first opening and then data support.

For ML/conference-style experiment sections, open `references/experiments.md`
and make sure each major claim is backed by comparison, ablation, or stress-test
evidence.

### Related Work

Use:

From Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar, MIT.

More from Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar

Signals

Stars
5,894
Forks
461
Open issues
1
Last commit (this folder)
Sep 23, 2026 (1 month ago)
Last release
Feb 25, 2026 (8 months ago)

From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).

Details

License
MIT
First seen
Oct 24, 2026
Last checked
Oct 24, 2026

More from Galaxy-Dawn

Done for you

Rather not set it up yourself?

Chalk Labs scopes, builds and runs agents for your team: the task audit, the eval harness, the integrations and the weekly ops report. Fixed scope, priced before we start.

See how we build AI agents →Read the case studies

Chalk Labs is a two-founder AI and growth studio. We build AI agents, CRMs and MVPs for Web3 and AI companies, and have shipped 50+ product and token launches.

launches shipped
50+
launches shipped
media placements
500+
media placements
founders on every account
2
founders on every account

Press we've placed: Forbes · CoinDesk · Decrypt · Cointelegraph · The Block

Rahil Jain, Co-founder, Chalk Labs. Ex-Goldman Sachs engineer. You talk to the person who builds it.

Get nature-writing running in your business

Tell us what you want to automate. A founder replies within one working day with a plan, not a pitch deck.

Goes to the Chalk Labs founders, not the newsletter. Privacy

Need help deploying nature-writing?

CallGet help
Cite this page

nature-writing skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/galaxy-dawn-nature-writing (last updated 2026-10-24)