A modular workflow for Codex and Claude Code that connects scientific claims, evidence, figures, writing, citations and reviewer responses.
From first draft to submission. Built for life-science and computational-methods manuscripts—at the scale your task needs.
These results demonstrate that the treatment improves both marker expression and survival.
The treatment therefore increased marker expression without a demonstrated survival benefit.
Synthetic example · illustrative reference, not a live model run.
Your research. Your evidence. A clearer manuscript.
Start with paper-workflowNo need to memorize every skill.
A smoother sentence is not always a stronger paper. Connect the claim, the evidence and the job each section needs to do.
Build the argument before refining its wording. Do not make an unsupported conclusion sound more convincing.
Follow the logic →Keep measured values, independent units, negative results and necessary conditions intact throughout the edit.
See the difference →Give the Abstract, Results and Discussion distinct roles, while keeping their scientific claims aligned.
Explore section contracts →Enter at any stage. A paragraph edit does not require a whole-paper pipeline.
Question, available evidence and article type.
A clear scope and a suitable writing route.
Main claims, result tables and the current manuscript.
A coherent argument and the gaps that need attention.
Scientific questions, results and source data.
Purposeful panels, aligned legends and a Results narrative.
A draft, a section or a paragraph with its context.
Clearer prose that stays within the supplied evidence.
Submission files or reviewer comments and completed work.
Prioritized findings or numbered responses with matched edits.
Make the scientific question, argument and evidence work together.
Inputs, outcomes & a ready-to-use promptGive the Abstract, Results or Discussion a clear scientific job.
Inputs, outcomes & a ready-to-use promptGive every figure one main claim and every panel a reason to be there.
Inputs, outcomes & a ready-to-use promptA paper can exist without supporting the sentence that cites it.
Inputs, outcomes & a ready-to-use promptFind what would block submission, not another reason to rewrite everything.
Inputs, outcomes & a ready-to-use promptConnect every reviewer request to an answer and an actual manuscript change.
Inputs, outcomes & a ready-to-use promptNot stronger-sounding language. A conclusion the supplied results can actually support.
These results demonstrate that the treatment improves both marker expression and survival.
The treatment therefore increased marker expression without a demonstrated survival benefit.
An illustrative reference revision, not a recorded live agent execution or a comparative benchmark. “No demonstrated survival benefit” does not mean “no effect.”
An Abstract is not a shortened Results section. A Discussion is not a list of limitations. Make each part do the work the paper needs.
Explore the section contracts ↗Guidance informed by a sample of 28 method papers; not an official journal format. The journal’s current instructions take precedence.
Use your existing research environment. Install a profile, choose the entry skill and start with a small, self-contained example.
› Use paper-workflow. Revise the Results paragraph using the supplied evidence.
Preserve measured values and figure references. Save a revised copy and explain the material changes.Skills provide instructions and helper scripts—not experimental evidence, a built-in editor or a guarantee of publication.
Your explicit scope and the target journal’s requirements come first. Unavailable tools and unchecked sources remain visible. Compatibility ↗