Skill: ithacajason/jason-academic-writing (version 1.0.1)

--- name: jason-academic-writing description: "Complete academic paper writing pipeline with integrity checks and multi-agent review system. Optimized prompts for Methods/Results/Discussion sections. Features self-counterargument framework, bias matrix, and overclaim self-audit. Use when writing research papers, need citation verification, anti-hallucination checks, multi-perspective review, or auditable process records." version: 1.0.1 requires: env: - OPENAI_API_KEY - OPENAI_BASE_URL --- # Academic Writing Pipeline End-to-end academic paper production with built-in quality gates and multi-agent review. ## Pipeline Overview ``` Research → Write → Integrity Check → Review → Revise → Summary ``` Each stage has defined inputs/outputs and quality gates. The pipeline is **non-linear**: stages may loop (Review → Revise → Re-Review) until quality threshold met. ## Stage Details ### Stage 1: Research **Goal**: Gather and organize evidence. **Actions**: 1. Literature search via Semantic Scholar API 2. Filter by relevance score ≥ 0.5 3. Grade evidence level (A: meta-analysis, B: RCT, C: observational, D: opinion) 4. Output: `research/evidence.json` **Script**: `scripts/research.py` ### Stage 2: Write **Goal**: Generate structured manuscript. **Actions**: 1. Build argument chain from evidence 2. Generate sections: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion 3. Track citation markers for each claim 4. Output: `draft/manuscript.md` **Script**: `scripts/write.py` ### Stage 3: Integrity Check (CRITICAL) **Goal**: Anti-hallucination verification. **Check types**: - **Citation verification**: DOI exists? Authors match? Year correct? - **Data verification**: Numbers match tables/figures? - **Claim verification**: Evidence supports assertion? **Threshold**: Must pass 100% of checks to proceed. **Script**: `scripts/integrity_check.py` **APIs used**: - Semantic Scholar (`https://api.semanticscholar.org`) - CrossRef DOI (`https://api.crossref.org/works/`) ### Stage 4: Review (5-Person Panel) **Agents**: | Role | Focus | Score Weight | |------|-------|--------------| | Editor-in-Chief | Contribution, journal fit | 30% | | Methodology | Methods, stats, reproducibility | 25% | | Domain Expert | Related work, theory | 20% | | Devil's Advocate | Strongest counter-arguments | 15% | | Synthesizer | Merge opinions, roadmap | 10% | **Decision mapping**: - ≥80: Accept - 65-79: Minor Revision - 50-64: Major Revision - <50: Reject **Script**: `scripts/review.py` ### Stage 5: Revise **Goal**: Address reviewer feedback. **Actions**: 1. Parse Synthesizer roadmap 2. Generate revision plan with priorities 3. Rewrite affected sections 4. Re-run Integrity Check **Script**: `scripts/revise.py` ### Stage 6: Process Summary **Goal**: Auditable record. **Output**: `summary.json` containing: - Timeline of each stage - Decision points and scores - Integrity check results - Reviewer scores and comments - Revision history **Script**: `scripts/summary.py` ## Configuration Edit `config.yaml` for: - Model selection (default: `qwen3.5-plus`) - Temperature (default: 0.3 for stability) - Review thresholds - API keys ## Usage ```bash # Full pipeline python scripts/main.py --topic "your research topic" # Single stage python scripts/main.py --stage integrity-check --input draft/manuscript.md # With custom config python scripts/main.py --config custom_config.yaml ``` ## Quality Gates | Gate | Requirement | Action on Fail | |------|-------------|----------------| | Evidence | ≥5 Grade A/B sources | Return to Research | | Integrity | 100% verification | Return to Write | | Review | ≥65 score | Loop Revise | | Final Integrity | 100% verification | Block submission | ## Key Principles 1. **Integrity First**: Citation verification is non-negotiable 2. **Quantified Review**: Scores enable objective decisions 3. **Loopable Pipeline**: Revision cycles until threshold met 4. **Auditable Output**: Process Summary for journal submission ## Reference Files - `references/review_rubric.md` - Detailed scoring criteria - `references/evidence_levels.md` - Evidence grading standards - `references/citation_styles.md` - Journal formatting guides


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: suspicious | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (CRITICAL)