Stats
Actions
Tags
From academic-writing
Revise paper sections based on co-author feedback or TODO comments. Use when iterating on an existing draft, addressing co-author suggestions, or processing inline TODO comments in LaTeX source. Trigger whenever the user has feedback to incorporate, TODOs to resolve, sections to rewrite, or needs to adapt a paper for a different venue — even informally like "my advisor says this section needs work" or "can you fix these TODOs."
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/academic-writing:reviseThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Process co-author feedback, resolve inline TODO comments, and improve specific sections of an existing draft.
Process co-author feedback, resolve inline TODO comments, and improve specific sections of an existing draft.
When feedback comes via email, chat, or comments:
For % TODO: comments in LaTeX source:
% TODO: comments% TODO: comment after addressing itExample:
% Before:
We achieve state-of-the-art results on X. % TODO: add specific numbers
% After:
We achieve state-of-the-art results on X, improving accuracy from 87.3\% to 92.1\% (Table~\ref{tab:main}).
For diagnosis and fixes of common section problems (generic abstract, long intro, reproducibility gaps, missing claims, etc.), consult references/writing-guide.md — each paper section includes a Common Problems table with symptoms and fixes.
| Signal | Action |
|---|---|
| Feedback targets specific sentences/paragraphs | Revise in-place — edit the existing text |
| Feedback says "this section doesn't work" | Restructure — outline new structure, then rewrite |
| Multiple reviewers confused by same section | Rewrite from scratch — the framing is wrong, not just the words |
| Feedback is "needs more X" | Expand — add content while preserving existing structure |
| Feedback is "too long / too detailed" | Condense — cut ruthlessly, move details to appendix |
When rewriting a section:
By default, make edits directly without track-change markup. Only use track changes when the user explicitly asks for them (e.g., "mark changes in blue," "use latexdiff," "highlight what you changed").
When requested, make changes visible:
| Method | When to Use |
|---|---|
Blue text (\textcolor{blue}{...}) | Quick, works everywhere, good for rebuttals |
\changed{} custom macro | Define once in preamble, toggle on/off for camera-ready |
latexdiff old.tex new.tex | Automated diff between two versions; generates marked-up PDF |
Comments (% CHANGED:) | Lightweight, for co-author review within source |
Tip: Define a toggle macro so you can easily switch between marked-up and clean versions:
\newcommand{\changed}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}} % For review
% \newcommand{\changed}[1]{#1} % For camera-ready
When resubmitting to a different venue:
\section{} commands), not LaTeX preamblereferences/writing-guide.md for style and clarity principlesnpx claudepluginhub jasonbian97/jason-cc-skills --plugin academic-writingOrchestrates manuscript revisions by parsing feedback, mapping to sections like intro and methods, and routing to specialized skills such as lit-writeup and methods-writer.
Academic writing multi-agent orchestrator. TRIGGER when: user is editing .tex files, reviewing thesis/paper chapters, drafting academic content, checking writing quality, or analyzing research positioning. Coordinates specialist agents in parallel for review, research, drafting, polishing, figure work, bibliography auditing, and literature surveys.
Reviews existing scientific manuscripts (.tex/.typ/.md) with location-anchored comments and user-approved edits. Verifies references and factual claims.