academic-writing
Academic writing, research methodology, and scholarly communication workflows. Use when writing papers, literature reviews, grant proposals, conducting research, managing citations, preparing for peer review, choosing OA routes under Plan S / 2026 OSTP Nelson Memo, posting preprints, working with persistent identifiers (ORCID, DOI, ROR), assigning CRediT contributor roles, preregistering analyses on OSF / AsPredicted, or disclosing LLM use to journals and funders. Essential for researchers, graduate students, and academics across disciplines.
What this skill does
# Academic writing and research methodology
Systematic approaches for scholarly writing, research design, and academic communication.
## Research design fundamentals
### Research question development
```markdown
## Crafting a research question
### The FINER criteria
- **F**easible: Can you actually do this research?
- **I**nteresting: Does it matter to the field?
- **N**ovel: Does it add new knowledge?
- **E**thical: Can it be done ethically?
- **R**elevant: Does it address a real problem?
### Question types
| Type | Purpose | Example |
|------|---------|---------|
| Descriptive | Document phenomena | "What are the characteristics of X?" |
| Comparative | Compare groups/conditions | "How does X differ between groups?" |
| Correlational | Examine relationships | "Is there a relationship between X and Y?" |
| Causal | Establish causation | "Does X cause Y?" |
| Exploratory | Generate hypotheses | "What factors might explain X?" |
### Refining your question
Start broad → Narrow progressively
Draft 1: "How does social media affect politics?"
Draft 2: "How does Twitter use affect political polarization?"
Draft 3: "How does exposure to partisan Twitter accounts affect
political attitude polarization among US adults?"
Draft 4: "Does increased exposure to ideologically homogeneous Twitter
feeds increase affective polarization among politically
engaged US adults aged 18-35?"
```
### Literature review strategy
```markdown
## Systematic literature search
### Database selection by field
- **Multidisciplinary**: Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar
- **Social Sciences**: JSTOR, ProQuest, SSRN
- **Communication**: Communication Abstracts, ComAbstracts
- **Health**: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL
- **Education**: ERIC
- **Business**: Business Source Complete
### Search strategy template
1. **Identify key concepts** from research question
2. **Generate synonyms** for each concept
3. **Combine with Boolean operators**
Example for: "social media political polarization"
Concept 1: social media
- OR: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, "social networking sites",
"online platforms", "digital media"
Concept 2: political
- OR: partisan, ideological, electoral, civic
Concept 3: polarization
- OR: division, extremism, "attitude change", radicalization
Combined search:
(Twitter OR Facebook OR "social media" OR "social networking")
AND (political OR partisan OR ideological)
AND (polarization OR division OR extremism)
### Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Document your criteria:
- Publication date range: [X to present]
- Languages: [English only / multiple]
- Publication types: [Peer-reviewed only / include preprints]
- Geographic scope: [Global / specific countries]
- Methodologies: [All / specific approaches]
### Managing your search
- Save searches to re-run later
- Export results to reference manager
- Track number of results at each stage
- Document date of each search
```
### Citation management
```python
# Zotero/reference manager integration patterns
# For automated citation workflows
CITATION_STYLES = {
'apa7': 'American Psychological Association 7th edition',
'mla9': 'Modern Language Association 9th edition',
'chicago': 'Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition',
'harvard': 'Harvard Reference format',
'ieee': 'IEEE',
'vancouver': 'Vancouver (medicine)',
}
# BibTeX entry template
BIBTEX_ARTICLE = """
@article{{{citekey},
author = {{{author}}},
title = {{{title}}},
journal = {{{journal}}},
year = {{{year}}},
volume = {{{volume}}},
number = {{{number}}},
pages = {{{pages}}},
doi = {{{doi}}}
}}
"""
# Common citation patterns by context
CITATION_CONTEXTS = {
'introducing_concept': "According to Author (Year), ...",
'supporting_claim': "Research has shown that X (Author, Year; Author, Year).",
'contrasting': "While Author (Year) argues X, Author (Year) contends Y.",
'methodology_reference': "Following the method developed by Author (Year), ...",
'direct_quote': 'Author (Year) states that "exact quote" (p. X).',
}
```
## Paper structure and writing
### IMRaD structure (scientific papers)
```markdown
## Standard research paper sections
### Abstract (150-300 words typically)
- Background (1-2 sentences)
- Purpose/objective (1 sentence)
- Methods (2-3 sentences)
- Results (2-3 sentences)
- Conclusions (1-2 sentences)
### Introduction
**Funnel structure:**
1. Broad context - Why does this topic matter?
2. Narrow focus - What's the specific problem?
3. Gap identification - What don't we know?
4. Research question/hypothesis - What will you investigate?
5. Contribution preview - Why does this study matter?
### Literature Review
**Organize thematically, not chronologically:**
1. Theme 1: Key findings, debates, gaps
2. Theme 2: Key findings, debates, gaps
3. Theme 3: Key findings, debates, gaps
4. Synthesis: How themes connect to your study
### Methods
**The reproducibility test:** Could another researcher replicate your study from this section alone?
Include:
- Participants/sample (who, how selected, N)
- Materials/measures (what instruments, their validity)
- Procedure (step-by-step what happened)
- Analysis approach (statistical tests, qualitative methods)
- Ethical considerations (IRB, consent)
### Results
**Report, don't interpret:**
- Present findings systematically
- Use tables/figures for complex data
- Report effect sizes, not just p-values
- Address each research question/hypothesis
### Discussion
**Reverse funnel structure:**
1. Summary of key findings
2. Interpretation in context of literature
3. Theoretical implications
4. Practical implications
5. Limitations
6. Future research directions
7. Conclusion
```
### Academic writing style
```markdown
## Writing conventions
### Voice and tense
| Section | Tense | Example |
|---------|-------|---------|
| Abstract | Past (methods/results), Present (conclusions) | "We found... This suggests..." |
| Introduction | Present (established knowledge) | "Research shows..." |
| Methods | Past | "Participants completed..." |
| Results | Past | "Analysis revealed..." |
| Discussion | Present + Past | "These findings indicate... We found..." |
### Hedging language
Appropriate hedging (avoiding overclaiming):
- "This suggests that..." (not "This proves that...")
- "may be related to" (not "causes")
- "Results indicate..." (not "Results demonstrate conclusively...")
- "One possible explanation..." (not "The explanation...")
### Transition words by function
**Addition:** furthermore, moreover, additionally, in addition
**Contrast:** however, nevertheless, conversely, in contrast
**Cause/effect:** therefore, consequently, as a result, thus
**Example:** for instance, specifically, to illustrate
**Sequence:** first, subsequently, finally, meanwhile
**Summary:** in summary, overall, in conclusion
### Paragraphs
Each paragraph should:
1. Begin with a topic sentence
2. Contain one main idea
3. Include supporting evidence
4. Connect to adjacent paragraphs
5. Average 100-200 words (varies by field)
```
### Common writing problems
```markdown
## Issues to avoid
### Wordiness
❌ "It is important to note that the results demonstrate..."
✅ "Results demonstrate..."
❌ "In order to investigate..."
✅ "To investigate..."
❌ "A total of 50 participants..."
✅ "Fifty participants..."
### Weak verbs
❌ "The study was conducted by the researchers"
✅ "The researchers conducted the study"
❌ "There was a significant difference found"
✅ "We found a significant difference"
### Vague language
❌ "Several studies have shown..."
✅ "Three studies (Author, Year; Author, Year; Author, Year) showed..."
❌ "The results were significant"
✅ "The results were statistically significant (p < .05, d = 0.45)"
### Unnecessary jargon
- Define technical terms on first use
- Use simpler words when equally precise
- Consider your audience's expertise level
### Citation problems
❌ Citing secondary sources without noting
✅ "(Author, Year, as cited in AutRelated in AI Agents
skill-development
IncludedComprehensive meta-skill for creating, managing, validating, auditing, and distributing Claude Code skills and slash commands (unified in v2.1.3+). Provides skill templates, creation workflows, validation patterns, audit checklists, naming conventions, YAML frontmatter guidance, progressive disclosure examples, and best practices lookup. Use when creating new skills, validating existing skills, auditing skill quality, understanding skill architecture, needing skill templates, learning about YAML frontmatter requirements, progressive disclosure patterns, tool restrictions (allowed-tools), skill composition, skill naming conventions, troubleshooting skill activation issues, creating custom slash commands, configuring command frontmatter, using command arguments ($ARGUMENTS, $1, $2), bash execution in commands, file references in commands, command namespacing, plugin commands, MCP slash commands, Skill tool configuration, or deciding between skills vs slash commands. Delegates to docs-management skill for official documentation.
reprompter
IncludedTransform messy prompts into well-structured, effective prompts — single or multi-agent. Use when: "reprompt", "reprompt this", "clean up this prompt", "structure my prompt", rough text needing XML tags and best practices, "reprompter teams", "repromptception", "run with quality", "smart run", "smart agents", multi-agent tasks, audits, parallel work, anything going to agent teams. Don't use when: simple Q&A, pure chat, immediate execution-only tasks. See "Don't Use When" section for details. Outputs: Structured XML/Markdown prompt, quality score (before/after), optional team brief + per-agent sub-prompts, agent team output files. Success criteria: Single mode quality score ≥ 7/10; Repromptception per-agent prompt quality score 8+/10; all required sections present, actionable and specific.
adaptive-compaction
IncludedAdaptive add-on policy and recovery layer that decides WHEN to compact, prune, snapshot, or fork -- replacing fixed-percent auto-compaction across Claude Code, Codex, and MCP-capable hosts. Trigger on auto-compact timing or damage: "when should I compact", "is it safe to compact now or start a fresh session", "auto-compact fires too early/mid-task", "switching to an unrelated task but the window still has space", "context rot", "answers get worse the longer the session runs", "the agent forgot the plan or my decisions after it summarized", "add a layer on top that manages context without changing the agent", raising autoCompactWindow to give the policy room, or installing/tuning a cross-tool compaction policy or PreCompact hook -- even when "compaction" is never said but the problem is context-window pressure or post-summarization memory loss. Do NOT use to summarize a conversation, build RAG, write a summarization prompt (decides WHEN not HOW), or answer max-context-length trivia.
agent-skill-creator
IncludedCreate cross-platform agent skills from workflow descriptions. Activates when users ask to create an agent, automate a repetitive workflow, create a custom skill, or need advanced agent creation. Triggers on phrases like create agent for, automate workflow, create skill for, every day I have to, daily I need to, turn process into agent, need to automate, create a cross-platform skill, validate this skill, export this skill, migrate this skill. Supports single skills, multi-agent suites, transcript processing, template-based creation, interactive configuration, cross-platform export, and spec validation.
llm-wiki
IncludedUse when building or maintaining a persistent personal knowledge base (second brain) in Obsidian where an LLM incrementally ingests sources, updates entity/concept pages, maintains cross-references, and keeps a synthesis current. Triggers include "second brain", "Obsidian wiki", "personal knowledge management", "ingest this paper/article/book", "build a research wiki", "compound knowledge", "Memex", or whenever the user wants knowledge to accumulate across sessions instead of being re-derived by RAG on every query.
skill-master
IncludedAgent Skills authoring, evaluation, and optimization. Create, edit, validate, benchmark, and improve skills following the agentskills.io specification. Use when designing SKILL.md files, structuring skill folders (references, scripts, assets), ingesting external documentation into skills, running trigger evals, benchmarking skill quality, optimizing descriptions, or performing blind A/B comparisons. Keywords: agentskills.io, SKILL.md, skill authoring, eval, benchmark, trigger optimization.