A complete academic paper writing and revision system — 14 workflows covering the full paper lifecycle.
An AI skill that helps researchers, PhD students, and academics write, revise, restructure, and submit research papers using proven frameworks (CARS, IMRaD, CLAIM) and cognitive load theory. Based on Prof. Lennart Nacke's paper-writing system, expanded with additional frameworks from peer review literature.
Academic writing is not one task. It is six different cognitive processes crammed into one activity: deciding what to say, figuring out how to say it, tracking your audience, maintaining coherence, planning structure, and judging quality. Trying to do all six simultaneously is why writing feels impossible.
AcademicWriter breaks writing into sequential, well-scoped tasks. Each workflow targets a specific bottleneck with a proven template. You stop fighting blank-page paralysis and start following a system.
You: "Help me revise my discussion section — reviewers said it lacks comparison with prior work"
AcademicWriter:
→ loads Discussion template (reverse hourglass)
→ checks structure: Summary → Interpret → Compare → Contribute → Limit
→ flags missing literature comparison
→ generates comparison paragraphs using phrase bank
→ verifies claims match evidence strength
| # | Flow | Trigger | What It Does |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Full paper | "Help me write my paper" | Guided drafting in cognitive-load order: Figures → Methods → Results → Discussion → Intro → Abstract |
| 2 | Section draft | "Draft my introduction" | Loads the relevant section template (CARS, CLAIM, etc.) and generates a structured draft |
| 3 | Draft review | "Review my draft" | 3-phase AI critique: extract core argument → identify structural problems → suggest restructuring |
| 4 | Revision | "Help me revise" | Hierarchical revision: structure → clarity → style → proofing (never polish before restructuring) |
| 5 | Reviewer response | "Respond to reviewers" | Point-by-point response letter with 6 rebuttal strategies by comment type |
| 6 | Rejection check | "Why do papers get rejected?" | Checks draft against top 15 rejection patterns with specific fixes |
| # | Flow | Trigger | What It Does |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Restructure | "Restructure my paper" | Extracts section outline, checks proportions vs. ideal targets, flags violations, proposes and executes structural moves |
| 8 | Strengthen | "Strengthen my methods" | Applies the relevant template loop (e.g., Contextualize→Describe→Justify) to find and fill gaps |
| 9 | Shorten | "Shorten to 5000 words" | Identifies redundancy (throat-clearing, text/table duplication, over-citation), proposes cuts, verifies argument survives |
| 10 | Expand | "Expand my discussion" | Finds thin sections (missing justification, missing lit comparison), generates expansion using templates |
| 11 | Journal adapt | "Adapt for Plant Physiology" | Reformats structure, section names, and audience framing for target venue |
| 12 | Thesis convert | "Convert thesis chapter" | Strips thesis padding (exhaustive lit review, over-detailed methods), tightens framing, adds contribution statement |
| 13 | Resubmit | "Resubmit after rejection" | Classifies decision type, categorizes each reviewer comment, creates revision action plan, drafts cover letter |
| 14 | Merge drafts | "Merge co-author drafts" | Detects voice/tense/terminology inconsistencies across sections, fills content gaps, harmonizes |
Every section has a proven structural formula. The skill applies these automatically.
| Section | Formula | How It Works |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract | Context → Problem → Solution → Findings → Contribution | 5 slots, fill in order. 150–300 words. |
| Introduction | CARS: Territory → Niche → Occupy | 3 rhetorical moves (Swales, 1990). Funnel from broad to narrow. |
| Literature Review | CLAIM: Cite → Link → Argue → Identify → Map | Don't list papers — compare, evaluate, and connect to your gap. |
| Methods | Contextualize → Describe → Justify | Run this loop for every major choice (sample, procedure, analysis). |
| Results | Remind → Describe → Explain | Run per finding. No interpretation — pure description. |
| Discussion | Summary → Interpret → Compare → Contribute → Limit | Reverse hourglass: narrow findings → broad implications. |
| Conclusion | Contributions → Significance → Recommendations → Future | 4 elements. Synthesize impact — don't repeat the abstract. |
The included scripts/manuscript_analyzer.py automatically analyzes a manuscript and detects:
- Section boundaries and word counts
- Proportion imbalances (e.g., Introduction > 20%, Discussion < 15%)
- Interpretation leaking into Results (catches "this suggests..." in the wrong section)
- Missing justification in Methods (no "because" / "was chosen" language)
- Absent contribution statement
- Missing limitations section
- Lack of literature comparison in Discussion
- Missing required sections (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion)
python3 scripts/manuscript_analyzer.py manuscript.txtExample output:
{
"total_words": 6420,
"issues_found": 3,
"issues": [
{"section": "Results", "issue": "Contains interpretation ('this suggests...') — move to Discussion", "severity": "MEDIUM"},
{"section": "Discussion", "issue": "Lacks comparison with prior literature", "severity": "HIGH"},
{"section": "Overall", "issue": "No limitations section or mention of limitations found", "severity": "HIGH"}
]
}Organized by section and function — introduction openers, gap statements, methodology justifications, results reporting, discussion comparisons, hedging language (strong/moderate/weak evidence), and transitions.
- Pre-submission checklist — content, writing quality, technical, ethics, and submission package
- Per-section checklist — quality criteria for each section (Abstract through Conclusion)
- Revision response template — copy-paste template for point-by-point reviewer response letters
Field-specific structure and formatting norms for STEM, social sciences (APA), computer science (ACM/CHI), biomedical (Vancouver), humanities, and plant sciences/agriculture.
AcademicWriter/
├── SKILL.md # Main routing + 14 workflow definitions
├── README.md
├── LICENSE
├── scripts/
│ └── manuscript_analyzer.py # Structure analysis + issue detection
├── references/
│ ├── 01_writing_order.md # Inverted assembly line protocol
│ ├── 02_zero_draft.md # Generative vs evaluative mode separation
│ ├── 03_section_templates.md # All 7 section templates (CARS, CLAIM, CDJ, RDE)
│ ├── 04_ai_sparring.md # 3-phase critique, red team, clarity editing
│ ├── 05_revision_hierarchy.md # Structure → Clarity → Style → Proofing
│ ├── 06_paper_modification.md # Flows 7–14 (restructure, shorten, expand, adapt, etc.)
│ ├── 07_reviewer_response.md # Response letter templates + 6 rebuttal strategies
│ ├── 08_rejection_reasons.md # Top 15 rejection patterns + pre-submission diagnostics
│ ├── 09_phrase_bank.md # 200+ sentence starters by section and function
│ └── 10_journal_conventions.md # Field-specific conventions + cover letter template
└── assets/checklists/
├── pre_submission_checklist.md # Final check before submitting
├── per_section_checklist.md # Quality criteria for each section
└── revision_response_template.md # Copy-paste template for response letters
17 files | 2,000+ lines
git clone https://github.com/prem-p-singh/AcademicWriter.git ~/.claude/skills/AcademicWriter- Go to Settings → Features → Custom Skills
- Upload the
AcademicWriter.skillfile (or zip the folder and upload)
mkdir -p .claude/skills
git clone https://github.com/prem-p-singh/AcademicWriter.git .claude/skills/AcademicWritercd ~/.claude/skills/AcademicWriter && git pullAcademicWriter works well alongside:
- RGraphMaker — 50 types of publication-ready R graphs for your Figures & Tables section
- Humanizer — removes AI-sounding patterns from drafted text
| Framework | Author/Year | Used For |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive Load Theory | Sweller, 1988 | Writing sections in demand-minimizing order |
| CARS Model | Swales, 1990 | Three-move introduction structure |
| Cognitive Process Theory | Flower & Hayes, 1981 | Separating generation from evaluation |
| IMRaD | ICMJE standard | Standard scientific paper structure |
| CLAIM Framework | Academic writing pedagogy | Analytical literature review structure |
| Hierarchical Revision | Editing best practices | Fix structure before style |
- Nacke, L. (2026). "The Paper-Writing System I'd Hand Every New PhD Student on Day One." lennartnacke.com
- Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge UP.
- Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1981). "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing." College Composition and Communication, 32(4).
- Faber, J. (2017). "Writing Scientific Manuscripts: Most Common Mistakes." Dental Press J. Orthod. PMC5730143.
- SAGE Publishing (2025). "7 Steps for Navigating Major Revisions in Peer Review."
- Springer Nature. "Revising and Responding to Reviewers." Author tutorials.
- Barkema, H. et al. (2023). "Why I Rejected Your Paper." Academy of Management Review.
Prem Pratap Singh, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Researcher, UC Davis — Department of Viticulture and Enology
MIT License — free to use, modify, and distribute.