
Scientific Writing
- 20 installs
- 869 repo stars
- Updated June 8, 2026
- beita6969/scienceclaw
scientific-writing is a Claude skill that assists with academic paper composition, LaTeX formatting, abstract drafting, reviewer responses, and grant proposals.
About
This skill assists with academic paper composition, LaTeX formatting, and scholarly communication. A researcher uses it to draft abstracts and paper sections, format in LaTeX, respond to reviewer comments, or write grant proposals. It supplies paper-structure templates, LaTeX and BibTeX snippets, a reviewer-response template, citation-style guidance, and a writing-quality checklist.
- Templates for IMRaD papers, review/survey papers, and NSF/NIH grant proposals
- LaTeX support with article templates, package list, and BibTeX entry formats
- Reviewer-response template plus a clarity, precision, and flow writing checklist
Scientific Writing by the numbers
- 20 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- Ranked #999 of 1,879 Documentation skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 2, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
scientific-writing capabilities & compatibility
- Capabilities
- documentation · copywriting
- Use cases
- documentation · copywriting
What scientific-writing says it does
Academic paper composition, LaTeX formatting, and scholarly communication.
Assist with scientific paper writing, LaTeX formatting, abstract drafting, review responses, grant proposals, and academic communication.
Quantify claims ("increased by 15%" not "significantly increased")
npx skills add https://github.com/beita6969/scienceclaw --skill scientific-writingAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 20 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 869 |
| Last updated | June 8, 2026 |
| Repository | beita6969/scienceclaw ↗ |
What it does
Draft or edit a scientific paper section, abstract, LaTeX document, reviewer response, or grant proposal.
Who is it for?
Drafting and editing paper sections, abstracts, LaTeX documents, reviewer responses, and grant proposals.
Skip if: Non-academic or marketing copywriting.
When should I use this skill?
You need to write or edit a scientific paper, abstract, LaTeX document, reviewer response, or grant proposal.
What you get
Well-structured paper sections, correct LaTeX and BibTeX, and effective reviewer responses following academic conventions.
- abstract
- paper section draft
- LaTeX document
By the numbers
- 7-section IMRaD structure
- 5 citation styles (APA, IEEE, Vancouver, Chicago, Nature)
- Abstract length 150-300 words
Files
Scientific Writing
Academic paper composition, LaTeX formatting, and scholarly communication.
Paper Structure Templates
IMRaD (standard empirical paper)
1. Title: Concise, informative, includes key variables 2. Abstract: Background (1-2 sentences) → Objective → Methods → Results → Conclusion (150-300 words) 3. Introduction: Broad context → Narrow focus → Gap → Research question/hypothesis 4. Methods: Reproducible detail; subsections by procedure 5. Results: Findings without interpretation; tables/figures referenced 6. Discussion: Summary → Interpretation → Comparison with literature → Limitations → Implications → Future work 7. References: Consistent citation style
Review / Survey Paper
1. Introduction with scope and search methodology 2. Taxonomy / organizational framework 3. Systematic coverage of subtopics 4. Synthesis and comparison 5. Open problems and future directions
Grant Proposal (NSF/NIH style)
1. Specific Aims (1 page) 2. Significance 3. Innovation 4. Approach (preliminary data, research plan, timeline) 5. Budget justification
LaTeX Support
Common Templates
Article:
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{natbib}
\title{Your Title}
\author{Author Name \\ Institution \\ \texttt{email@example.com}}
\date{\today}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Your abstract here.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
\section{Methods}
\section{Results}
\section{Discussion}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\bibliography{references}
\end{document}Useful LaTeX Packages
booktabs— professional tablessiunitx— SI units and number formattingalgorithm2e— pseudocodetikz/pgfplots— figures and plotscleveref— smart cross-referencessubcaption— subfigureslistings/minted— code listings
BibTeX Entry Formats
@article{key,
author = {Last, First and Last2, First2},
title = {Paper Title},
journal = {Journal Name},
year = {2024},
volume = {1},
pages = {1--10},
doi = {10.xxxx/xxxxx}
}Reviewer Response Template
We thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback. Below we address each comment point by point.
---
**Reviewer Comment 1:** [Quote the comment]
**Response:** [Your response]
**Changes made:** [Describe specific changes with page/line numbers]
---Guidelines for reviewer responses:
- Be respectful and grateful, even for harsh reviews
- Address every point, even minor ones
- Clearly distinguish between changes made and rebuttals
- Provide evidence (new analyses, references) for disagreements
- Reference specific manuscript locations for changes
Writing Quality Checklist
Clarity
- One idea per paragraph
- Topic sentence first
- Active voice preferred (but passive OK for methods)
- Avoid jargon without definition
- Short sentences for complex ideas
Precision
- Quantify claims ("increased by 15%" not "significantly increased")
- Distinguish correlation from causation
- Use hedging appropriately ("suggests" vs "proves")
- Report effect sizes, not just p-values
Flow
- Logical paragraph transitions
- Consistent terminology throughout
- Forward references for later sections
- Signposting ("First... Second... Finally...")
Common Issues to Fix
- Dangling modifiers
- Pronoun ambiguity ("this" without referent)
- Nominalization overuse (use verbs, not noun forms)
- Redundancy ("past history", "future plans")
- Weak openings ("It is well known that...")
Citation Styles
- APA 7th: (Author, Year) — social sciences
- IEEE: [1] numbered — engineering/CS
- Vancouver: (1) numbered — biomedical
- Chicago: footnotes — humanities
- Nature: superscript numbered — natural sciences
When unsure, ask the user for their target journal/conference and adapt accordingly.
Related skills
FAQ
What paper structures does it cover?
IMRaD empirical papers, review/survey papers, and NSF/NIH-style grant proposals.
Does it help with reviewer responses?
Yes, it provides a point-by-point reviewer-response template and guidelines for addressing comments.