Define the question. Know the paper you are writing.
Question, available evidence and article type.
A clear scope and a suitable writing route.
Build the evidence chain before improving the sentences.
Main claims, result tables and the current manuscript.
A coherent argument and the gaps that need attention.
Make figures and Results tell the same scientific story.
Scientific questions, results and source data.
Purposeful panels, aligned legends and a Results narrative.
Revise the section you need, at the depth you requested.
A draft, a section or a paragraph with its context.
Clearer prose that stays within the supplied evidence.
Check what matters. Answer what was actually asked.
Submission files or reviewer comments and completed work.
Prioritized findings or numbered responses with matched edits.
Start at any level: a full paper, one section or a single paragraph. A diagnosis request produces findings. A revision request authorizes changes only within its stated scope.
Fix the argument before its wording
Check whether the question, claim and evidence support each other. Then address section logic, passage clarity and sentence style where a problem actually exists. Sound layers do not need a rewrite.
Keep integrity checks separate
Statistical reporting, bibliography consistency, source existence and claim support answer different questions. A source that cannot be accessed is not a source that has passed verification.
Recheck connected claims, not everything
When a Results claim changes, recheck the places that restate it. A focused consistency check does not authorize rewriting protected passages or reopening settled scientific decisions.
Writing a Review or Perspective?
Use the article-type-specific architecture. A long research paper does not become a Review just because it is long.
Review architecture ↗Ready for a concrete task?
Choose the input and outcome you need, then copy a request into your agent. The site itself does not run the workflow.
Choose a use case →