first commit

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-polishing/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# `nature-polishing` skill
+
+An academic-writing skill for polishing, restructuring, and translating manuscript prose into concise `Nature`-leaning English.
+
+Source hierarchy:
+
+- `Main strategy`: the course notes in `Chapter1-Week1-7 full version.pdf`
+- `Published article patterns`: curated Nature and Nature Communications examples
+- `Reference support`: `Academic-Phrasebank-Navigable-PDF-2023.pdf`
+
+## What changed
+
+- The main `SKILL.md` now follows the first PDF's architecture: paper type, reader workflow, hourglass structure, writing order, section responsibilities, intellectual debt, and AI/ethics boundaries.
+- Article-level polishing can now use the published-paper pattern reference for abstracts, introductions, Results, Discussions, conclusions, and titles.
+- The reference folder now serves a narrower role: phrase families, move templates, and style checks derived from the second PDF.
+- The skill now distinguishes `research papers` from `methods papers`.
+- The skill treats `core argument ownership` as a central rule, not a side note.
+
+## File structure
+
+```text
+nature-polishing/
+├── SKILL.md
+├── README.md
+└── references/
+    ├── published-article-patterns.md
+    ├── phrasebank-playbook.md
+    ├── section-moves.md
+    ├── style-guardrails.md
+    └── writing-strategy.md
+```
+
+## When to use
+
+- polishing an abstract, introduction, results, discussion, conclusion, or title
+- polishing a methods section or a methods paper with fair-comparison logic
+- translating Chinese academic text into publishable English
+- tightening section logic before submission
+- softening overclaims and fixing evidence-weighted language
+- making prose read more like strong journal English without inventing content
+
+## Design intent
+
+The skill should:
+
+- preserve facts, citation intent, and author responsibility
+- make the first PDF the governing writing strategy
+- improve rhetorical sequencing at paragraph level
+- keep sentences short and readable
+- use the second PDF only as the phrase and reference layer
+- avoid generic AI prose and unsupported claims
+
+## Reference map
+
+- `section-moves.md`: section order and move patterns
+- `published-article-patterns.md`: writing patterns from curated Nature and Nature Communications articles
+- `phrasebank-playbook.md`: hedging, transitions, evidence, limitations, future work
+- `style-guardrails.md`: British style, articles, abbreviations, units, register, overclaim control
+- `writing-strategy.md`: paragraph- and section-level argument logic
+
+## Notes
+
+- The skill is designed for polishing and restructuring, not for fabricating scientific content.
+- The main strategic rules live in `SKILL.md`; the reference files should not overrule them.
+- The reference files are intentionally selective. They are meant to guide choices, not to encourage boilerplate copying.

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-polishing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,386 @@
+---
+name: nature-polishing
+description: Polish, restructure, or translate academic prose into Nature-leaning English using writing-strategy principles, curated Nature/Nature Communications article patterns, and phrase-level support from Academic Phrasebank. Use whenever the user asks to polish a manuscript paragraph, abstract, introduction, results, discussion, conclusion, title, methods section, or Chinese academic draft for publication-quality English.
+version: 5.0.2
+author: Yuan1z skill rebuilt from course notes plus Academic Phrasebank
+---
+
+# Nature-Style Academic Polishing
+
+Use this skill to improve scientific writing at two levels:
+
+- `main strategy`: paper architecture, published-article patterns, section logic, reader workflow, evidence thresholds, and ethics
+- `reference support`: reusable phrase families, move patterns, transitions, and style checks
+
+The main strategy should come from the course notes in `Chapter1-Week1-7` and
+the curated article-pattern reference. The wording layer should come from
+`Academic Phrasebank`.
+
+## Default stance
+
+- Language serves argument. Do not polish sentences while leaving the reasoning broken.
+- Write with empathy for the reader: relevance first, then novelty, then trust, then reuse, then meaning.
+- There should be no mystery for the writer, but there may be one for the reader.
+- Do not invent data, references, mechanisms, or novelty claims.
+- Do not let AI draft the paper's core scientific argument from scratch.
+- If the draft is Chinese or structurally rough, reconstruct the logic first and the prose second.
+- Avoid em dashes in polished output by default. Prefer commas, parentheses, or full stops. Use colons sparingly unless the user explicitly asks to preserve dash-based punctuation or wants a colon-led style.
+
+## When to open extra files
+
+These files are reference support. Use them after the section's rhetorical job is clear.
+
+| File | Open when |
+|---|---|
+| [references/published-article-patterns.md](references/published-article-patterns.md) | You need Nature/Nature Communications article-level writing patterns for abstracts, introductions, Results, Discussion, conclusions, or titles |
+| [references/writing-strategy.md](references/writing-strategy.md) | You need paragraph- or section-level argument repair before sentence polishing |
+| [references/section-moves.md](references/section-moves.md) | You need section-specific move orders or phrase patterns derived from Academic Phrasebank |
+| [references/phrasebank-playbook.md](references/phrasebank-playbook.md) | You need hedging, transition, evidence, limitation, or future-work phrase families |
+| [references/style-guardrails.md](references/style-guardrails.md) | You need academic-style checks, paragraph/sentence checks, article use, register, or mechanics |
+
+## Core architecture
+
+### 1. Identify the paper type first
+
+Before editing, determine what kind of paper or section this is.
+
+- `Research paper`: the reader asks why the phenomenon matters, what was done, what was found, and what it means.
+- `Methods paper`: the reader asks whether the method works, whether it is reproducible, and whether it is better under a fair comparison.
+- `Hypothesis-based work`: the argument tries to establish or rule out a causal explanation.
+- `Algorithmic or device work`: the argument proposes a procedure, tool, or system and must show that it performs reliably and advantageously.
+
+Do not use one narrative logic for all paper types.
+
+For article-level rewrites, especially abstracts, introductions, Results openings,
+Discussion paragraphs, conclusions, and titles, also apply the writing patterns in
+`references/published-article-patterns.md`.
+
+### 2. Write for the reader, not for the draft chronology
+
+Most readers follow a stable sequence:
+
+1. Is this relevant to me?
+2. What is new here?
+3. Do I trust it?
+4. Can I reuse it?
+5. What does it mean, and where are the boundaries?
+
+Polishing should help the paper answer these questions in this order.
+
+### 3. Use the hourglass structure
+
+Strong papers often mirror an hourglass:
+
+- `Introduction`: open broadly, then narrow to the specific gap, question, hypothesis, methods, and study
+- `Discussion/Conclusion`: widen again, connecting the findings back to the literature and explaining how the knowledge gap was filled
+
+If a paragraph or section violates this architecture, rebuild it before polishing wording.
+
+### 4. Use the correct writing order
+
+For a research article, a productive writing order is:
+
+1. Results
+2. Introduction and Conclusion
+3. Title
+4. Discussion
+5. Materials and Methods
+6. Authors
+7. Abstract
+
+For a methods paper, a productive writing order often begins with:
+
+1. Methods
+2. Results
+3. Introduction
+4. Conclusion
+5. Discussion
+6. Abstract
+
+The skill should follow the logic of evidence and argument, not the raw order in which the user drafted sentences.
+
+### 5. Protect the core argument
+
+The paper's core argument includes:
+
+- the scientific question the paper actually answers
+- why that question matters
+- how the work differs from existing research
+- what the results imply
+- how the main line of reasoning unfolds
+
+AI may help polish, structure, or compare phrasings. AI should not invent or author the core argument. If the argument is weak or unclear, expose that weakness rather than hiding it under polished language.
+
+### 6. Diagnose the failure mode before editing
+
+Before rewriting, identify the main problem:
+
+- wrong paper type logic
+- missing gap or poor positioning
+- claim without evidence
+- evidence without a clear claim
+- missing boundary or limitation
+- Results and Discussion mixed together
+- weak title or abstract signal
+- sentence-level clutter only
+
+Prioritize in this order:
+
+`paper type -> section job -> paragraph logic -> claim/evidence/boundary -> sentence polish`
+
+## Section responsibilities
+
+### Introduction
+
+The Introduction should:
+
+- tell the reader why the work matters
+- explain what gap it fills
+- explain why that gap matters
+- state what is already known
+- state what remains unresolved
+- state what question the paper asks
+- indicate how the study addresses it
+
+Do not summarize the Results section here. Do not summarize the Conclusion here.
+
+### Results
+
+Results are a summary of the data collected to address the problem stated in the Introduction.
+
+Results writing should:
+
+- stay mainly in past tense
+- report what was observed, under what conditions, and with what quantitative support
+- use statistics correctly and sparingly
+- use supplementary data sparingly
+
+Results should answer `what happened`, not `what it ultimately means`.
+
+### Discussion
+
+Discussion should answer:
+
+- how the work fits within the broader field
+- what has been added to understanding
+- who should be credited for earlier work
+- whether the findings support, complicate, or revise earlier results
+- how the findings are interpreted
+- when that interpretation may fail
+
+Short rule:
+
+- `Results = what we observed`
+- `Discussion = how we understand it, and when it may fail`
+
+### Conclusion
+
+Use the three-part close:
+
+1. restate the central contribution
+2. summarize the key evidence or outcome
+3. state the implication with a boundary
+
+Do not introduce new data in the conclusion. Always run an overclaim check here.
+
+### Title
+
+A strong title should:
+
+- tell the reader what to expect
+- avoid unnecessary technical language
+- be easy to search
+- be substantiated by data
+- create curiosity without sacrificing credibility
+
+Use `curiosity with credibility`, not empty cleverness. A hook is only acceptable if the claim remains fully defensible.
+
+### Materials and Methods
+
+Methods should be specific, complete, transparent, and reproducible.
+
+Another group should be able to determine:
+
+- whether the work conforms to ethical norms
+- what materials and conditions were used
+- which key parameters, controls, and replicates were used
+- how data were processed and analysed
+- which statistical tests and software versions were used
+
+It is acceptable to abbreviate by citing an earlier report only when that report truly contains the necessary detail.
+
+Never leave vague phrases such as:
+
+- `under standard conditions`
+- `using routine methods`
+- `data were analyzed statistically`
+- `differences were significant`
+- `samples were randomly assigned`
+- `the method was validated`
+
+Replace them with the actual reproducible information.
+
+### Methods-paper variant
+
+In a methods paper, the Results section must show the advantages of the method over existing methods. Typical questions are:
+
+- Is it more reliable?
+- Is it faster?
+- Does it require fewer resources?
+- Is the comparison fair and reproducible?
+
+The Methods section in a methods paper may need additional detail such as:
+
+- axioms, conditions, and assumptions
+- hardware and software environment
+- mathematical derivations
+- evaluation protocol
+- datasets, baselines, metrics, splits, and hyperparameters
+
+### Abstract
+
+The abstract is a mini-paper:
+
+`context/problem -> gap/objective -> approach -> key results -> implication`
+
+It should answer:
+
+1. What question was addressed?
+2. How was it addressed?
+3. What was found?
+4. Why should anyone care?
+
+Some journals require a strict abstract format. Follow the journal if it conflicts with the generic pattern.
+
+## Sentence and paragraph control
+
+### Sentence rules
+
+- In polished prose, aim for sentences in the `10-30` word range.
+- Keep every sentence at `<= 30` words.
+- Do not produce full sentences under `10` words unless the user explicitly asks for terse style or the item is a heading, label, or fixed technical expression.
+- If any sentence exceeds `20` words, check whether it contains more than one main proposition.
+- Split overloaded sentences rather than polishing them cosmetically.
+- The last sentence of a paragraph often becomes the longest and weakest. Check it explicitly.
+- Prefer one core subject-verb proposition per sentence.
+- Do not use em dashes as prose punctuation in the polished version unless the user explicitly requests them. Rewrite with commas, parentheses, or shorter sentences instead. Use colons only when they add clear structural value.
+
+### Paragraph rules
+
+- Each paragraph should have one controlling idea followed by support.
+- Supporting material may include data, comparison, explanation, consequence, literature, or limitation.
+- If a new idea appears, start a new paragraph instead of stacking it onto the old one.
+- Use thematic linking, not repetitive `This suggests ...` openings.
+
+### Results vs Discussion sentence types
+
+Results sentences usually report:
+
+- `was detected`
+- `increased`
+- `showed`
+- `enabled`
+- `achieved`
+
+Discussion sentences usually interpret:
+
+- `may reflect`
+- `suggests that`
+- `could indicate`
+- `is likely due to`
+- `may facilitate`
+
+Do not let a Results paragraph drift into Discussion syntax unless the transition is intentional.
+
+### Chinese-to-English mode
+
+When the source is Chinese or strongly Chinese-influenced English:
+
+- extract the core propositions first
+- do not translate clause-by-clause mechanically
+- reconstruct explicit logical links: contrast, cause, implication, limitation
+- verify terminology, causality, hedging, and disciplinary nuance
+- keep key technical terms stable
+
+## Citation, ethics, and AI boundaries
+
+### Intellectual debt
+
+Originality is usually an amendment, combination, or extension of prior knowledge. A careful writer acknowledges that debt openly.
+
+Do not minimize others' contributions just to make the present work seem more original.
+
+### Position attribution clearly
+
+Make it obvious:
+
+- how the paper builds on prior work
+- who was responsible for the earlier idea, method, data, or interpretation
+- where the reader can locate the source
+
+### Cite the source you actually read and verified
+
+- Cite paper `A` for `A`'s own data, methods, claims, or conclusions.
+- Cite paper `B` for `B`'s interpretation, comparison, critique, or commentary on `A`.
+- Avoid leaning on secondary sources when the source article can be cited directly.
+
+### What needs citation
+
+- someone else's ideas
+- data
+- methods
+- wording
+- structure
+- images
+- distinctive interpretation
+
+Do not assume internet material is public domain just because it is online.
+
+### Proofreading checks
+
+Always verify:
+
+- grammatical errors
+- typographical errors
+- figure numbering
+- missing citations
+- whether the paper is a pleasure or an ordeal to read
+
+### AI traffic-light boundary
+
+`Green`: generally acceptable with author verification
+
+- improve grammar, clarity, concision, or tone
+- generate outline options or paragraph structures
+- produce alternative titles or abstract phrasings
+- summarize literature for categorization, not as a substitute for reading
+- translate with terminology and hedging checks
+
+`Yellow`: allowed only with strong human control
+
+- explain methods or results for wording support
+- draft reviewer-response frameworks that are then checked line by line
+- help with code or statistics explanations only if outputs are reproduced and validated
+
+`Red`: generally inappropriate
+
+- ask AI to draft the paper's core argument from scratch
+- insert AI-generated references, data, or claims without checking them
+- upload unpublished manuscripts, sensitive data, or peer-review material to public models
+- use AI to fabricate, manipulate, or conceal substantive image creation
+
+The main danger is not that AI cannot write. The main danger is that it can write incorrectly with great confidence.
+
+## Output format
+
+Default output:
+
+1. The polished text as plain prose, not in a code block.
+2. `Revision notes:` with `3-5` short bullets on the major structural and stylistic changes.
+3. If the rewrite changed section logic, say so explicitly.
+
+If the user asks for side-by-side revision, provide:
+
+- `Original`
+- `Polished`
+- `Why changed`

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-polishing/references/phrasebank-playbook.md

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+# Phrasebank Playbook
+
+Use this file after the main argument and section role are already clear. It is a phrasebank layer derived from `Academic Phrasebank`, not a substitute for deciding what the paragraph is trying to do.
+
+## Evidence strength
+
+Choose verbs that match the evidence.
+
+### Strong
+
+- `show`
+- `demonstrate`
+- `establish`
+- `reveal`
+- `identify`
+
+Use only when the design and data justify a strong claim.
+
+### Moderate
+
+- `suggest`
+- `indicate`
+- `support the view that`
+- `are consistent with`
+- `point to`
+
+Use when the interpretation is plausible but not definitive.
+
+### Speculative
+
+- `may reflect`
+- `could arise from`
+- `appears to`
+- `seems likely`
+- `might be explained by`
+
+Use when moving beyond direct observation.
+
+## Evidence collocations
+
+Adjectives for evidence:
+
+- weak: `limited`, `scant`, `insufficient`
+- developing: `growing`, `emerging`, `accumulating`
+- strong: `robust`, `reliable`, `convincing`, `considerable`
+
+Useful patterns:
+
+- `The evidence presented here suggests that ...`
+- `The available evidence supports the view that ...`
+- `Current evidence raises important questions about ...`
+- `The data point to a need for ...`
+
+## Transition families
+
+### Contrast
+
+- `however`
+- `by contrast`
+- `nevertheless`
+- `despite this`
+- `whereas`
+
+### Addition
+
+- `furthermore`
+- `in addition`
+- `moreover`
+- `also`
+
+### Consequence
+
+- `therefore`
+- `thus`
+- `consequently`
+- `as a result`
+- `thereby`
+
+### Qualification
+
+- `notably`
+- `importantly`
+- `approximately`
+- `in part`
+- `at least in this cohort`
+
+Prefer the smallest connective that does the job. Do not decorate every sentence with a transition word.
+
+## Paragraph linking without sounding repetitive
+
+Prefer these patterns over repeated `This suggests`:
+
+- restate the noun: `Such heterogeneity ...`
+- definite noun phrase: `The resulting gradient ...`
+- participial summary: `Taken together, ...`
+- zero-connective progression when the logic is already obvious
+
+Limit demonstrative-led openings. One per paragraph is usually enough.
+
+## Gap language
+
+Use gap statements that are precise rather than dramatic:
+
+- `remains poorly understood`
+- `has not been examined in ...`
+- `has received limited attention`
+- `few studies have addressed ...`
+- `evidence remains sparse for ...`
+
+Avoid:
+
+- `no one has ever studied`
+- `completely unknown`
+- `ignored by all previous work`
+
+## Comparison with prior work
+
+To align with earlier work:
+
+- `These results are consistent with ...`
+- `This finding accords with ...`
+- `Our observations broadly support ...`
+
+To mark divergence fairly:
+
+- `In contrast to earlier reports, ...`
+- `This finding differs from ...`
+- `One possible reason for this discrepancy is ...`
+
+## Limitation language
+
+Useful patterns:
+
+- `These findings should be interpreted with caution because ...`
+- `A limitation of this study is that ...`
+- `The generalisability of these results is limited by ...`
+- `We cannot exclude the possibility that ...`
+- `Another source of uncertainty is ...`
+
+Pair limitation language with the actual source of uncertainty, not with vague modesty.
+
+## Implication language
+
+Useful patterns:
+
+- `An implication of this is that ...`
+- `These findings may help to explain ...`
+- `These data support further investigation of ...`
+- `This work has implications for ...`
+
+Implications should stay within the evidence boundary.
+
+## Future-work language
+
+Useful patterns:
+
+- `Further work is needed to determine whether ...`
+- `Future studies should examine ...`
+- `A useful next step would be to ...`
+- `Larger studies are required to validate ...`
+
+Future work should emerge from an actual limitation, uncertainty, or opportunity.

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-polishing/references/published-article-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+# Published Article Patterns
+
+Use this file when polishing should improve scientific argument, not just English.
+The patterns below are distilled from curated Nature and Nature Communications
+research articles across materials, energy systems, construction decarbonization
+and machine learning. Do not copy their wording. Use the patterns to diagnose
+and reshape the user's manuscript.
+
+## Abstract pattern
+
+Strong abstracts usually move in six steps:
+
+1. name the field-scale problem or opportunity
+2. show why existing approaches are incomplete
+3. state the specific intervention or method
+4. give the decisive result with scale, comparison or constraint
+5. explain why the result changes what is possible
+6. close with scope, application or boundary
+
+Polishing rule: if an abstract starts with the method, add the problem and gap
+first. If it ends with enthusiasm, replace it with a bounded implication.
+
+## Introduction pattern
+
+High-performing introductions often use `scale -> bottleneck -> prior attempts ->
+missing capability -> present study`.
+
+- `Scale`: quantify why the problem matters, preferably with field-level stakes.
+- `Bottleneck`: name the physical, computational, clinical or practical barrier.
+- `Prior attempts`: acknowledge existing strategies fairly.
+- `Missing capability`: explain what those strategies still cannot do.
+- `Present study`: state what the paper does, not what it hopes to do.
+
+Polishing rule: keep the gap narrow enough that the study can actually fill it.
+Avoid novelty claims that depend on weakening prior work.
+
+## Results pattern
+
+Results sections usually work best as an evidence ladder:
+
+1. overview of the system, workflow or design space
+2. validation that the platform works under controlled conditions
+3. primary performance result
+4. comparison with baselines or current practice
+5. mechanism, interpretation or diagnostic analysis
+6. scale-up, generalization or real-world application
+
+Each Results paragraph should begin with the question or test, then report the
+observation, then give the quantitative or comparative support. Interpretation
+should be brief unless the paragraph is explicitly bridging into Discussion.
+
+## Discussion pattern
+
+Effective Discussion writing starts from the central advance and then widens:
+
+- what the study demonstrates
+- why the evidence is credible
+- how it changes an existing workflow, design rule or conceptual boundary
+- what constraints remain
+- what future work is enabled, without promising untested outcomes
+
+Do not turn the Discussion into a second Results section. Use it to state what
+the results mean and where that meaning stops.
+
+## Conclusion pattern
+
+Nature-style conclusions are compact. They usually combine:
+
+1. the contribution in one sentence
+2. the mechanism, performance or feasibility evidence that supports it
+3. the scale or application implied by the work
+4. one boundary condition, if the claim could otherwise overreach
+
+Polishing rule: remove new data from conclusions. Preserve confidence, but add
+scope control.
+
+## Title pattern
+
+Strong titles are concrete and searchable. They often combine:
+
+- object or system
+- action or capability
+- application, scale or consequence
+
+Prefer titles that reveal the central scientific move. Avoid titles that sound
+like grant aims, slogans or broad fields.
+
+## Sentence-level pattern
+
+Published prose often looks simple because each sentence does one job:
+
+- background sentence: field stake or known fact
+- gap sentence: unresolved limitation
+- method sentence: what was done
+- result sentence: observed effect plus condition
+- comparison sentence: baseline or previous state
+- implication sentence: meaning with scope
+- limitation sentence: boundary or dependency
+
+When polishing, label each sentence by job. If two jobs compete in one sentence,
+split it or subordinate one job.
+
+## Overclaim checks from article patterns
+
+Flag and soften claims when:
+
+- a laboratory or simulation result is written as an immediate field-wide solution
+- a single material, model or system is described as universally applicable
+- correlation is rewritten as mechanism
+- a comparison lacks a fair baseline
+- a future application is stated as an achieved outcome
+
+Good Nature-leaning prose can be ambitious, but the ambition must be attached to
+evidence, scale and boundary.

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-polishing/references/section-moves.md

@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+# Section Moves
+
+Use this file only after the main section logic has been decided in `SKILL.md`. This file is for phrase-level and move-level support derived from `Academic Phrasebank`, not for deciding the paper's overall writing strategy.
+
+## Introduction
+
+Questions this section must answer:
+
+1. Why does the topic matter?
+2. What is already known?
+3. What is still missing or contested?
+4. What does the present study ask or do?
+
+Preferred move order:
+
+1. establish importance
+2. summarize what is known
+3. identify a gap, limitation, or controversy
+4. state the study aim
+5. indicate value or approach
+
+Useful phrase families:
+
+- `Recent years have seen increasing interest in ...`
+- `X is a central issue in ...`
+- `Previous studies have shown that ...`
+- `However, the mechanisms underlying ... remain poorly understood.`
+- `Few studies have examined ...`
+- `Here, we investigate whether ...`
+- `This work provides ...`
+
+Avoid:
+
+- long historical throat-clearing
+- detailed results
+- inflated novelty claims before the gap is defined
+
+## Literature Review
+
+Questions this section must answer:
+
+1. What lines of work define the field?
+2. What has been established?
+3. Where do findings diverge or remain incomplete?
+4. Which gap matters for the present paper?
+
+Preferred move order:
+
+1. describe the scope of existing work
+2. identify dominant approaches
+3. state what has been established
+4. note disagreements or contradictions
+5. isolate the missing piece
+
+Useful phrase families:
+
+- `A substantial body of work has focused on ...`
+- `Most studies have relied on ...`
+- `Previous work has established that ...`
+- `Findings have been mixed regarding ...`
+- `By contrast, little attention has been paid to ...`
+- `No study has yet examined ...`
+
+Avoid:
+
+- citation-by-citation summary
+- treating all prior work as uniformly weak
+
+## Methods
+
+Question this section must answer:
+
+- Could another group reproduce the work from this description, or from this description plus a clearly cited protocol?
+
+Preferred move order:
+
+1. design or cohort
+2. materials or data source
+3. procedure
+4. outcome measures
+5. analysis and statistics
+6. ethics when relevant
+
+Useful phrase families:
+
+- `A cross-sectional study was undertaken to ...`
+- `Samples were collected from ...`
+- `X was quantified using ...`
+- `We used ... to assess ...`
+- `Differences were analysed using ...`
+- `All analyses were performed in ...`
+
+Avoid:
+
+- `under standard conditions`
+- `using routine methods`
+- `data were analysed statistically`
+
+## Results
+
+Question this section must answer:
+
+- What was observed, under which condition, and with what evidence?
+
+Preferred move order:
+
+1. orient the reader to the figure, table, or experiment
+2. state the main observation
+3. add quantitative detail
+4. note expected or unexpected patterns
+5. compare with prior work only if it clarifies the result
+
+Useful phrase families:
+
+- `Figure 1 shows ...`
+- `As shown in Table 1, ...`
+- `The most notable finding was that ...`
+- `Contrary to expectations, ...`
+- `No significant difference was observed in ...`
+- `These results are consistent with ...`
+- `In contrast to earlier reports, ...`
+
+Avoid:
+
+- discussion-length mechanism explanations
+- repeating every visual detail from the figure
+
+## Discussion
+
+Questions this section must answer:
+
+1. What do the main findings mean?
+2. How do they relate to earlier work?
+3. Which explanations are plausible?
+4. What limitations constrain interpretation?
+5. What follows from the findings, and what does not?
+
+Preferred move order:
+
+1. restate the main finding
+2. explain plausible reasons
+3. compare with earlier work
+4. note limitations
+5. state implications
+6. point to future work if needed
+
+Useful phrase families:
+
+- `Taken together, these findings suggest that ...`
+- `A possible explanation is that ...`
+- `This discrepancy may reflect ...`
+- `These results should be interpreted with caution because ...`
+- `An implication of this is that ...`
+- `Further work is needed to determine whether ...`
+
+Avoid:
+
+- repeating the Results section in new words
+- claiming mechanism when only association was shown
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Questions this section must answer:
+
+1. What was the central contribution?
+2. Which finding matters most?
+3. What implication follows, with what boundary?
+
+Preferred move order:
+
+1. return to the aim
+2. summarize the decisive finding
+3. state contribution or significance
+4. give a boundary or forward look
+
+Useful phrase families:
+
+- `This study set out to ...`
+- `The present findings indicate that ...`
+- `These results extend our understanding of ...`
+- `Notwithstanding these limitations, ...`
+- `Further studies are required to ...`
+
+Avoid:
+
+- introducing new experiments
+- ending on vague praise of the work
+
+## Abstract
+
+Questions this section must answer:
+
+1. What problem or gap is being addressed?
+2. What was done?
+3. What was found?
+4. Why should the reader care?
+
+Preferred move order:
+
+1. broad context
+2. concrete gap
+3. approach
+4. key result with numbers if available
+5. implication
+
+Useful phrase families:
+
+- `X remains challenging because ...`
+- `Here, we ...`
+- `Using ... , we found that ...`
+- `We show that ...`
+- `These findings suggest ...`
+
+Keep the abstract selective. If a detail does not affect editorial triage, it probably does not belong.
+
+## Title
+
+Question this section must answer:
+
+- Which few words make the paper searchable, accurate, and interesting without overclaiming?
+
+Target properties:
+
+- searchable
+- specific
+- restrained
+- defensible
+
+Useful patterns:
+
+- `[Core entity] in/through/by [mechanism or context]`
+- `[Process] shapes [outcome] in [system]`
+- `[Signature/pattern/framework] of [phenomenon]`
+
+Avoid:
+
+- `A study of ...`
+- vague hooks
+- unverified `first`
+- stacked jargon

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-polishing/references/style-guardrails.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# Style Guardrails
+
+Use this file for mechanical and stylistic checks after the main rewrite. This file should refine prose and correctness, not override the main writing strategy in `SKILL.md`.
+
+## Academic style
+
+- prefer cautious, precise prose over conversational confidence
+- avoid contractions
+- avoid rhetorical questions in polished manuscript prose
+- define abbreviations on first use
+- use British spelling by default if the target is Nature-style prose
+- keep figure legends concise; if aiming for Nature style, `<= 300` words is a good upper bound
+- if aiming for Nature style, keep titles at `<= 75` characters including spaces
+
+## Articles
+
+Common checks:
+
+- first mention of a singular count noun: `a` or `an`
+- later mention of the same item: `the`
+- generic plural: usually no article
+- unique entity: often `the`
+- abstract nouns used generally: often no article
+
+Typical repair:
+
+- bad: `The hypoxia induces ...`
+- better: `Hypoxia induces ...`
+
+## Numbers and units
+
+- use numerals for measurements
+- leave a space between the value and the unit: `25 cm`, `3.2 s`
+- keep statistical symbols and mathematical notation consistent
+- use en dashes for ranges where appropriate
+
+Do not rewrite numbers into words unless the surrounding house style demands it.
+
+## Academic register
+
+- avoid spoken fillers and weak evaluative language
+- use `we` only when it suits the discipline and document type
+- keep nominalisation useful, not excessive
+- keep the prose impersonal where appropriate, but do not force lifelessness
+
+## Sentence and paragraph checks
+
+- each sentence should express one main proposition
+- dependent clauses must stay attached to a main clause
+- do not join two independent clauses with only a comma
+- each paragraph needs a controlling idea and supporting material
+- avoid common structure errors such as sentence fragments introduced by `although` or `whereas`
+
+## Overclaim checklist
+
+Flag and soften:
+
+- `prove`
+- `conclusively`
+- `unprecedented`
+- `best`
+- `superior`
+- `first`
+
+Safer replacements:
+
+- `show`
+- `suggest`
+- `to our knowledge`
+- `among the strongest`
+- `in this cohort`
+
+## Integrity rules
+
+- do not invent references
+- do not alter quantitative values unless correcting an obvious typo requested by the user
+- do not upgrade association to causation
+- do not imply broader generalisability than the study supports
+
+## AI boundary
+
+Use AI for language control, not for scientific fabrication.
+
+Allowed:
+
+- grammar and clarity
+- restructuring and hedging
+- translation with terminology checking
+
+Not allowed:
+
+- fabricated citations or datasets
+- invented mechanisms presented as fact
+- unsupported claims of novelty

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-polishing/references/writing-strategy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+# Writing Strategy
+
+Use this file when the user is not just asking for cleaner English, but for better scientific writing logic. This is the layer that should govern all paragraph- and section-level rewriting.
+
+## Core stance
+
+Academic polishing is not only about style. It is also about making the reasoning legible. A polished paragraph that still performs the wrong rhetorical job is a failed edit.
+
+## Hourglass structure
+
+Most strong research writing follows a `broad -> narrow -> broad` pattern:
+
+- `Introduction`: open the territory, narrow to the gap, then state the study
+- `Discussion/Conclusion`: start from the specific findings, then widen to implications and limits
+
+Use this pattern when deciding paragraph order and section scope. If a draft jumps between background, results, and implications without control, rebuild the progression first.
+
+## Writing order is not reading order
+
+The author may draft in one order and the reader may consume in another. A useful planning sequence is:
+
+1. results
+2. introduction and conclusion
+3. title
+4. discussion
+5. methods
+6. abstract
+
+The practical rule for this skill is simple: organize around evidence and argumentative function, not around the chronology of the raw draft.
+
+## Claim, evidence, boundary
+
+Every important scientific statement should have three parts:
+
+1. `claim`: what is being said
+2. `evidence`: what supports it
+3. `boundary`: where the claim stops, or what uncertainty remains
+
+Typical failures:
+
+- claim without evidence
+- data without an explicit point
+- implication without a scope condition
+- correlation rewritten as mechanism
+
+When polishing, repair these failures before polishing rhythm.
+
+## Section responsibilities
+
+### Introduction
+
+The Introduction should answer four questions:
+
+1. What is already known?
+2. What remains unresolved?
+3. What exact question does this study ask?
+4. How does the study address it?
+
+Do not summarize results or conclusions here.
+
+### Results
+
+Results state what was observed. They should provide:
+
+- object or system
+- condition
+- quantitative support
+- direct result
+
+Do not turn Results into a Discussion section by adding long mechanistic interpretation.
+
+### Discussion
+
+Discussion explains what the findings mean. It should address:
+
+- how the work fits the broader field
+- what has been added to understanding
+- which earlier work is being supported, revised, or complicated
+- which explanations are plausible
+- which limitations constrain the interpretation
+
+Discussion is the natural home for hedging.
+
+### Methods
+
+Methods should pass a reproducibility test: could another group repeat the work from this description, or from this description plus a clearly cited prior protocol?
+
+Reject vague writing such as:
+
+- `under standard conditions`
+- `using routine methods`
+- `data were analysed statistically`
+
+### Conclusion
+
+Conclusion is not a mini-discussion. A strong closing usually does three things:
+
+1. restates the central contribution
+2. identifies the decisive evidence
+3. states the implication with a boundary
+
+Do not introduce new data here.
+
+### Abstract
+
+The abstract is a mini-paper:
+
+1. context or problem
+2. gap
+3. approach
+4. key result
+5. implication
+
+It should help the reader decide whether the paper is relevant, credible, and potentially important.
+
+## Citation as positioning
+
+Citation is not just a formatting issue. It tells the reader how the current work stands relative to earlier work.
+
+Useful categories:
+
+- `support`: prior work supports the premise
+- `borrow`: current work adopts a method, framework, or protocol
+- `contrast`: current work differs in result, setting, or interpretation
+- `reuse/adaptation`: material, data, code, or images come from elsewhere
+
+Always cite the source actually read and verified. Do not cite a paper as direct support if you only know it through another paper's summary.
+
+## Fairness to earlier work
+
+Do not manufacture novelty by flattening previous studies into a weak baseline. Prefer language like:
+
+- `Although previous studies showed ..., their performance in ... remains unclear.`
+- `Earlier work established ..., but did not address ...`
+
+This preserves intellectual honesty while still making the gap explicit.
+
+## Overclaim control
+
+Watch for:
+
+- `prove`
+- `conclusively`
+- `unprecedented`
+- `best`
+- unqualified `first`
+
+Replace or qualify them unless the evidence is unusually strong and the scope is tightly defined.