All skills
imbad0202 avatar

/academic-paper

@c5c1b45

12-agent academic paper writing pipeline. 11 modes (full/plan/outline/revision/revision-coach/abstract/lit-review/format-convert/citation-check/disclosure/rebuttal-audit). 6 paper types, 5 citation formats, bilingual abstracts, LaTeX/DOCX-via-Pandoc/PDF output. Style Calibration + Writing Quality Check + Anti-Patterns with IRON RULE markers. Triggers: write paper, academic paper, guide my paper, parse reviews, I got reviewer comments, revision roadmap, should we push back, conference rebuttal, grant panel response, audit my rebuttal, check my response draft, AI disclosure, check citations, citation check, check my references, verify references, look over the refs, 寫論文, 學術論文, 引導我寫論文, 審查意見, 我收到審查意見, 修訂路線圖, 評估回覆, 檢查引用, 引用檢查, 檢查參考文獻, 核對文獻, 논문 작성, 초록 작성, 논문 수정, 논문 계획을 도와줘, 심사 의견을 받았어, 심사 의견 반영, 답변서 점검, AI 사용 고지, 인용 확인, 인용 형식 검사, enmendar mi artículo, redactar artículo, guía mi artículo, analizar reseñas, auditar mi respuesta, verificar borrador de respuesta, verificar citas, divulgación de IA.

Use this Skill: https://skilld.dev/gh/imbad0202/academic-research-skills/academic-paper

This session only. Nothing lands on disk.

templatescase_study_template.md

≈724 tokens on demand. Your agent reads this file only when SKILL.md points to it.

Case Study Paper Template

Usage

This template provides the skeleton for an in-depth case study paper analyzing specific institutions, programs, events, or phenomena.


[Paper Title in Title Case]

Author(s): [Author Name(s)] Affiliation(s): [Department, Institution] Date: [Date]


Abstract

[Background and case significance: 1-2 sentences.] [Purpose: 1 sentence.] [Method and data sources: 1-2 sentences.] [Key findings from the case: 2-3 sentences.] [Lessons and transferability: 1 sentence.]

Keywords: [keyword1], [keyword2], [keyword3], [keyword4], [keyword5]


1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Rationale

[Why study this case? What makes it significant or instructive?]

1.2 Case Selection Justification

[Why this specific case? Intrinsic interest, typicality, or extreme/deviant case?]

1.3 Research Questions

  1. RQ1: [Question 1]?
  2. RQ2: [Question 2]?

2. Literature Context

2.1 Relevant Theoretical Framework

[What theory informs the analysis?]

2.2 Prior Research on Similar Cases

[What do we know from comparable cases?]


3. Case Description

3.1 Context and Setting

[Institutional/organizational/geographical context.]

3.2 Key Actors and Stakeholders

[Who are the main players? What are their roles and interests?]

3.3 Timeline of Events

[Chronological narrative of key developments.]

Period Key Event Significance
[Date] [Event] [Why it matters]

3.4 Data Sources

[Documents, interviews, observations, archival data used.]


4. Analysis

4.1 Analysis Framework

[How the data were analyzed. Coding strategy, analytical lens.]

4.2 [Theme/Finding 1]

[Detailed analysis with evidence from the case data.]

4.3 [Theme/Finding 2]

[Detailed analysis with evidence from the case data.]

4.4 [Theme/Finding 3]

[Detailed analysis with evidence from the case data.]


5. Discussion

5.1 Cross-Theme Synthesis

[How do the themes/findings relate to each other?]

5.2 Comparison with Literature

[How does this case compare with prior research?]

5.3 Theoretical Insights

[What does this case contribute to theory?]

5.4 Transferability

[To what extent can lessons from this case apply elsewhere? (Note: case studies aim for transferability, not generalizability.)]


6. Lessons Learned and Recommendations

6.1 For Practitioners

[Actionable recommendations for people in similar situations.]

6.2 For Policymakers

[Policy implications from the case.]

6.3 For Researchers

[What further research does this case suggest?]


7. Conclusion

[Key takeaways and closing statement.]


AI Disclosure

[Standard AI disclosure statement.]

References

[Complete reference list.]

Appendices

Appendix A: [Case Documents / Interview Protocol / Data Summary]

Source: SKILL.md on GitHub

1 alert1d5 checks · Risk SAFE
  • Gen Agent Trust Hub1d

    This skill provides a highly structured 12-agent academic paper writing pipeline. It contains robust internal defenses, including explicit 'instruction-data' boundaries and sanitization of user-provided content. However, the skill's complexity, its reliance on shell command execution for document processing and utility scripts, and its heavy ingestion of untrusted third-party materials (such as reviewer comments and external research content) present a surface for potential misuse and indirect prompt injection.

  • Socket1d

    No alerts

  • Snyk1d

    Risk: LOW · No issues

  • Runlayer6mo

    7/44 files flagged

  • ZeroLeaks5mo

    Score: 93/100 · 2 sections analyzed

Signed by skilld at c5c1b45. This ties the file your Agent reads to that commit on GitHub. It does not review the instructions.

Last checked against GitHub 29 minutes ago.

Activeupdated 2 days ago
Other metadata
metadata
{
  "version": "3.3.1",
  "last_updated": "2026-08-15",
  "status": "active",
  "data_access_level": "raw",
  "task_type": "open-ended",
  "related_skills": [
    "deep-research",
    "academic-paper-reviewer",
    "academic-pipeline"
  ]
}

README badge

README badge for imbad0202/academic-research-skills/academic-paper