Scientific Manuscript Review

Takes your research manuscript through eight systematic passes, from extracting the core message to checking journal formatting compliance. Built around the IMRaD structure with specific templates for each section: the Introduction funnel (broad to gap to hypothesis), Results paragraphs (question, approach, finding, interpretation), and Discussion flow (findings to context to limitations). Catches common manuscript problems like buried gap statements, data dumps without interpretation, and overclaiming in discussions. Includes hedging language guidelines and a clarity checklist that verifies claims match evidence strength. Honestly, the structured approach is what makes this work. It stops you from doing vague holistic feedback and forces specific evaluation of whether each section does its job.

skills.sh installs: 484
GitHub stars: 193
last updated: Aug 21, 2026

View on GitHub

Install

$ npx -y skills add lyndonkl/claude --skill scientific-manuscript-review --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Files

Related skills: Grant proposals → grant-proposal-assistant | Recommendation letters → academic-letter-architect | Emails → scientific-email-polishing

Core Principles

Seven foundational beliefs guiding manuscript review:

Clarity over cleverness: Scientific clarity is more important than stylistic elegance
Narrative shapes comprehension: Structure and story arc determine reader understanding
Audience dictates tone: Expert vs. general audience requires different depth and framing
Format signals credibility: Professional formatting reflects scientific rigor
Claims require evidence: Strong assertions need strong data and appropriate hedging
Each section has a job: Introduction sells the problem, Results show the data, Discussion interprets
Constraints shape structure: Word limits and journal guidelines determine emphasis