Back to Details

nature-writing

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Nature-Style Scientific Writing

Nature风格科学写作

Use this skill when the user needs help creating or rebuilding manuscript prose, not merely polishing existing sentences.
当用户需要创建或重构手稿内容，而非仅润色现有语句时，可使用本技能。

Core stance

核心原则

  • Author evidence comes first. Do not invent results, mechanisms, references, methods, novelty, sample sizes, statistics or limitations.
  • Write the argument before writing the sentences.
  • Make the paper easy to judge: relevance, novelty, trust, reuse and meaning.
  • Use ambitious but bounded claims.
  • If essential evidence is missing, write a placeholder or ask for the missing input instead of filling the gap.
  • 优先依据作者提供的证据。不得编造研究结果、作用机制、参考文献、研究方法、创新性、样本量、统计数据或局限性。
  • 先构建论证框架，再撰写具体语句。
  • 让论文易于评判：突出相关性、创新性、可信度、可复用性和研究意义。
  • 提出有野心但有边界的论点。
  • 若关键证据缺失，应撰写占位符或询问缺失信息，而非自行填补空白。

When to open extra files

何时打开额外文件

FileOpen when
references/article-architecture.mdYou need section-level structure, argument order, or published-article writing patterns
references/abstract.mdDrafting or revising an abstract, especially challenge-contribution and challenge-insight-contribution forms
references/introduction.mdDrafting or revising an Introduction, task framing, technical challenge, contribution framing, or teaser/pipeline logic
references/related-work.mdRebuilding Related Work as topic synthesis instead of a paper-by-paper list
references/method.mdWriting Method sections, pipeline modules, module motivation, technical advantages, or implementation details
references/experiments.mdPlanning or writing Experiments/Results around baselines, ablations, metrics, tables, figures, and claim support
references/conclusion.mdWriting a bounded conclusion with contribution, evidence, impact, limitation, and future direction
references/paragraph-flow.mdUser asks whether a paragraph flows, makes sense, or is clear; use reverse outlining and paragraph-message checks
references/paper-review.mdFinal manuscript self-review, rejection-risk audit, claim-evidence alignment, or reviewer-facing critique
references/chinese-author-workflow.mdThe user's notes are Chinese, mixed Chinese-English, or organized as lab notes rather than manuscript prose
references/examples/index.mdYou need concrete abstract, introduction, or method examples after choosing the relevant guide
文件打开场景
references/article-architecture.md需要章节级结构、论证顺序或已发表文章的写作模式时
references/abstract.md起草或修改摘要，尤其是采用“挑战-贡献”或“挑战-洞见-贡献”结构时
references/introduction.md起草或修改引言、任务框架、技术挑战、贡献定位，或梳理先导逻辑/研究流程时
references/related-work.md将相关研究重构为主题综述，而非按论文逐一罗列时
references/method.md撰写方法章节、流程模块、模块动机、技术优势或实现细节时
references/experiments.md围绕基准模型、消融实验、评估指标、表格、图表及论点支撑来规划或撰写实验/结果章节时
references/conclusion.md撰写包含贡献、证据、影响、局限性和未来方向的有边界结论时
references/paragraph-flow.md用户询问段落是否流畅、合理或清晰时；使用反向大纲和段落核心信息检查法
references/paper-review.md手稿最终自我审查、拒稿风险评估、论点-证据一致性检查，或面向审稿人的批评意见梳理时
references/chinese-author-workflow.md用户的笔记为中文、中英混合，或为实验室笔记而非手稿内容时
references/examples/index.md选择相关指南后，需要具体的摘要、引言或方法示例时

Intake

前期准备

Before drafting, identify:
  • manuscript section: title, abstract, introduction, results, discussion, conclusion, significance paragraph or full outline
  • paper type: mechanism, method, resource, device, model, clinical, materials, computational or interdisciplinary
  • core claim: what the paper actually demonstrates
  • evidence: figures, measurements, comparisons, datasets, statistics or examples
  • boundary: where the claim stops
  • target journal or word limit, if provided
If any of 
core claim
, 
evidence
or 
boundary
is absent, expose the gap before drafting. You may still produce a scaffold with explicit placeholders.
起草前需明确：
  • 手稿章节：标题、摘要、引言、结果、讨论、结论、研究意义段落或完整大纲
  • 论文类型：机制研究、方法研究、资源研究、器件研究、模型研究、临床研究、材料研究、计算研究或跨学科研究
  • 核心论点：论文实际要论证的内容
  • 证据：图表、测量数据、对比结果、数据集、统计数据或实例
  • 边界：论点的适用范围
  • 目标期刊或字数限制（若提供）
若
核心论点
、
证据
或
边界
有缺失，需在起草前明确指出。你仍可生成带有明确占位符的框架。

Writing workflow

写作流程

  1. Build a one-sentence argument: 
    In [system/problem], we show [advance] using [approach], supported by [evidence], with [boundary].
  2. Choose the section architecture from 
    references/article-architecture.md
    .
  3. Map each paragraph to one job: context, gap, approach, result, comparison, mechanism, implication or limitation.
  4. Draft from evidence outward. Keep claims near the data that support them.
  5. Calibrate verbs: 
    show
    , 
    demonstrate
    , 
    suggest
    , 
    indicate
    , 
    enable
    , 
    may
    , 
    could
    .
  6. Remove unsupported novelty and universal claims.
  7. Run a paragraph-flow check: one paragraph, one message, with a clear first sentence and explicit sentence-to-sentence relation.
  8. Return prose plus concise notes on assumptions and missing inputs.
  1. 构建一句话论证：
    In [system/problem], we show [advance] using [approach], supported by [evidence], with [boundary].
  2. 从
    references/article-architecture.md
    中选择章节结构。
  3. 为每个段落分配一个核心任务：背景介绍、研究缺口、研究方法、研究结果、对比分析、作用机制、研究启示或局限性说明。
  4. 从证据出发向外拓展撰写。确保论点靠近支撑它的数据。
  5. 校准动词：
    show
    , 
    demonstrate
    , 
    suggest
    , 
    indicate
    , 
    enable
    , 
    may
    , 
    could
    .
  6. 删除无依据的创新性表述和泛化论点。
  7. 进行段落流畅性检查：一个段落一个核心信息，开头句清晰，句间逻辑关系明确。
  8. 返回文稿内容，并附上关于假设和缺失信息的简要说明。

Section defaults

章节默认结构

Abstract

摘要

Default Nature pattern:
context/problem -> gap -> approach -> key result -> implication -> boundary
For technical AI, ML, CV or method-heavy manuscripts, open 
references/abstract.md
and choose one of:
  • challenge -> contribution
  • challenge -> insight -> contribution
  • multiple contributions
Keep it compact. Include quantitative or comparative detail when the user provided it. End with what the work enables, not generic importance.
Default Nature pattern:
context/problem -> gap -> approach -> key result -> implication -> boundary
For technical AI, ML, CV or method-heavy manuscripts, open 
references/abstract.md
and choose one of:
  • challenge -> contribution
  • challenge -> insight -> contribution
  • multiple contributions
Keep it compact. Include quantitative or comparative detail when the user provided it. End with what the work enables, not generic importance.

Introduction

引言

Use:
field scale -> bottleneck -> prior attempts -> unresolved gap -> present study
For method-heavy papers, open 
references/introduction.md
and reason backward from the technical challenge and contribution before drafting forward.
Do not summarize all results. The final paragraph should state what this paper does and how it addresses the gap.
采用：
field scale -> bottleneck -> prior attempts -> unresolved gap -> present study
For method-heavy papers, open 
references/introduction.md
and reason backward from the technical challenge and contribution before drafting forward.
Do not summarize all results. The final paragraph should state what this paper does and how it addresses the gap.

Results narrative

结果阐述

Use an evidence ladder:
system/workflow -> validation -> main result -> baseline comparison -> mechanism/diagnostic analysis -> application or generalization
Each subsection should have a claim-first opening and then data support.
For ML/conference-style experiment sections, open 
references/experiments.md
and make sure each major claim is backed by comparison, ablation, or stress-test evidence.
采用证据阶梯结构：
system/workflow -> validation -> main result -> baseline comparison -> mechanism/diagnostic analysis -> application or generalization
Each subsection should have a claim-first opening and then data support.
For ML/conference-style experiment sections, open 
references/experiments.md
and make sure each major claim is backed by comparison, ablation, or stress-test evidence.

Related Work

相关研究

Use:
topic scope -> representative methods -> limitation tied to this paper -> distinction
Group prior work by technical topic and mechanism, not by publication year.
采用：
topic scope -> representative methods -> limitation tied to this paper -> distinction
Group prior work by technical topic and mechanism, not by publication year.

Discussion

讨论

Use:
central advance -> evidence meaning -> relation to prior work -> constraints -> future use
This is where interpretation and limitations belong. Do not repeat the Results section figure by figure.
采用：
central advance -> evidence meaning -> relation to prior work -> constraints -> future use
This is where interpretation and limitations belong. Do not repeat the Results section figure by figure.

Conclusion

结论

Use:
contribution -> decisive evidence -> implication -> boundary
No new data. No unsupported promises.
采用：
contribution -> decisive evidence -> implication -> boundary
No new data. No unsupported promises.

Title

Title

Prefer concrete titles that combine:
system/object + action/capability + application or consequence
Avoid slogan titles, grant-style aims and overbroad field claims.
Prefer concrete titles that combine:
system/object + action/capability + application or consequence
Avoid slogan titles, grant-style aims and overbroad field claims.

Output format

Output format

Default output:
  1. Draft:
    with the requested prose.
  2. Section outline:
    with 
    3-7
    compact bullets when the task involves a full section.
  3. Assumptions or missing inputs:
    with only material issues.
  4. Claim-evidence map:
    for major claims, using 
    Claim: ... | Evidence: ... | Status: supported/needs evidence
    .
  5. Why this structure:
    with 
    2-4
    short bullets.
For Chinese author notes, provide polished English first, then brief Chinese notes explaining major structural choices.
Default output:
  1. Draft:
    with the requested prose.
  2. Section outline:
    with 
    3-7
    compact bullets when the task involves a full section.
  3. Assumptions or missing inputs:
    with only material issues.
  4. Claim-evidence map:
    for major claims, using 
    Claim: ... | Evidence: ... | Status: supported/needs evidence
    .
  5. Why this structure:
    with 
    2-4
    short bullets.
For Chinese author notes, provide polished English first, then brief Chinese notes explaining major structural choices.