scientific-email-polishing
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/scientific-email-polishingPolishes scientific emails, cover letters, and reviewer responses for clarity and professionalism.
- Writes and refines academic correspondence with explicit asks and scannable formatting.
- Integrates with email clients and document editors for seamless drafting.
- Decides content structure based on recipient type and communication goal.
- Delivers ready-to-send drafts with appropriate tone and professional structure.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/scientific-email-polishingView on GitHub ↗
--- name: scientific-email-polishing description: Composes and polishes professional scientific correspondence -- emails to collaborators, journal cover letters, and responses to peer reviewers -- ensuring clear communication, appropriate tone, explicit asks, and professional formatting for academic contexts. Use when writing or polishing scientific emails, cover letters to editors, reviewer responses, or when user mentions email to collaborator, cover letter to journal, reviewer response, or professional scientific correspondence. --- # Scientific Email Polishing ## Table of Contents - [Core Principles](#core-principles) - [Workflow](#workflow) - [Email Types](#email-types) - [Tone Guidelines](#tone-guidelines) - [Guardrails](#guardrails) - [Quick Reference](#quick-reference) **Related skills for other document types:** - Recommendation letters: `academic-letter-architect` - Research statements: `career-document-architect` - Grant proposals: `grant-proposal-assistant` ## Core Principles **1. One email, one purpose**: Each email should have a clear, single objective **2. Explicit asks**: State exactly what you need from the recipient and by when **3. Context first**: Open with enough context for the reader to understand immediately **4. Professional but warm**: Formal doesn't mean cold; collegial is appropriate **5. Scannable format**: Busy recipients skim; use structure to aid quick reading ## Workflow Copy this checklist and track your progress: ``` Email Polishing Progress: - [ ] Step 1: Identify purpose and desired outcome - [ ] Step 2: Draft subject line (clear, specific) - [ ] Step 3: Write opening (context in first sentence) - [ ] Step 4: Compose body (organized, scannable) - [ ] Step 5: State explicit ask (what, by when) - [ ] Step 6: Close professionally (next steps, sign-off) - [ ] Step 7: Review tone (polite, appropriate) ``` **Step 1: Identify Purpose and Outcome** What action do you want the recipient to take? What decision do you need? By when? If you can't state this clearly, the email isn't ready to send. **Step 2: Draft Subject Line** Subject should preview content and signal urgency/type. Be specific: "Meeting request: Collaboration on X project" not "Quick question". See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#subject-lines) for examples. **Step 3: Write Opening** First sentence should establish context. Who are you (if unknown), why are you writing, what's this about? No need for extensive pleasantries. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#openings) for openers. **Step 4: Compose Body** Organize information logically. Use short paragraphs. Consider bullets for multiple points. Bold key information if needed. Keep under 3-4 paragraphs for most emails. **Step 5: State Explicit Ask** Be clear about what you need. Include timeline if relevant. Make it easy to say yes. Don't bury the ask. **Step 6: Close Professionally** Thank them, indicate next steps, offer to provide more info. Use appropriate sign-off for relationship level. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#closings) for sign-offs. **Step 7: Review Tone** Read aloud. Is it polite but efficient? Not too casual, not too stiff? Appropriate for your relationship with recipient? Validate using [resources/evaluators/rubric_email.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_email.json). ## Email Types ### Journal Cover Letter **Purpose:** Introduce manuscript, explain significance, suggest reviewers **Structure:** ``` Subject: Submission: [Manuscript Title] - [Type: Original Research/Review/etc.] Dear Dr. [Editor] / Dear Editors, [PARAGRAPH 1: What and why] Please find attached our manuscript entitled "[Title]" for consideration as a [Article Type] in [Journal Name]. This work [brief significance statement]. [PARAGRAPH 2: What's new] Our study [key finding/contribution]. This advances the field by [impact]. We believe this work will interest readers of [Journal] because [fit with journal scope]. [PARAGRAPH 3: Practicalities] The manuscript is [X] words with [Y] figures. All authors have approved the submission and there are no conflicts of interest to declare. This work has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration at another journal. [OPTIONAL: Reviewer suggestions] We suggest the following potential reviewers: [Names with institutions and emails]. [CLOSING] Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, [Corresponding Author] ``` ### Response to Reviewers **Purpose:** Address each point thoroughly and professionally **Structure:** ``` Subject: Revised Manuscript [ID]: [Title] Dear Dr. [Editor], Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript "[Title]". We appreciate the thoughtful comments from the reviewers, which have significantly improved our work. Below we provide point-by-point responses to each comment. Reviewer comments are in italics, our responses in plain text, and changes to the manuscript are noted. --- REVIEWER 1 *Comment 1: [Quote reviewer comment]* Response: [Your response]. We have [action taken]. This change appears on page X, lines Y-Z. *Comment 2: [Quote reviewer comment]* Response: [Your response]. [Continue for all comments] --- REVIEWER 2 [Same format] --- We hope these revisions address the reviewers' concerns and that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in [Journal]. Please do not hesitate to contact us if additional revisions are needed. Sincerely, [Corresponding Author] ``` ### Collaboration Request **Purpose:** Propose collaboration with new contact **Structure:** ``` Subject: Collaboration opportunity: [Brief topic description] Dear Dr. [Name], I am [Your Name], a [position] at [Institution], working on [research area]. I am reaching out because [why them specifically - be genuine and specific]. [Brief background on your work and why collaboration makes sense] I would be interested in [specific collaboration proposal]. This could involve [what you're proposing - be concrete]. Would you be available for a brief call to discuss? I'm flexible on timing and happy to work around your schedule. Thank you for considering this. [Optional: note any mutual connection] Best regards, [Your Name] ``` ## Tone Guidelines ### Formality Spectrum | Recipient | Tone | Example Sign-off | |-----------|------|-----------------| | Unknown editor/senior | Formal | "Sincerely," "Respectfully," | | Known colleague (distant) | Professional-warm | "Best regards," "Best," | | Known colleague (close) | Warm-professional | "Best," "Thanks," | | Close collaborator | Friendly-professional | "Thanks," "Cheers," | ### Professional but Not Stiff **Too stiff:** > "I am writing to inquire as to whether you might be available to provide guidance regarding..." **Too casual:** > "Hey! Quick q - you free to chat about that thing?" **Just right:** > "I'm reaching out to see if you'd have time to discuss [topic]. Would a brief call work for you next week?" ### Diplomatic Language **When declining:** - "Unfortunately, I won't be able to..." - "While I appreciate the opportunity, my current commitments prevent..." - "I'd recommend reaching out to [alternative] who might be better positioned..." **When disagreeing (reviewer response):** - "We respectfully disagree with this interpretation because..." - "While we understand the reviewer's concern, our data suggests..." - "We have added clarification to address this point, though we maintain that..." **When following up:** - "I wanted to follow up on my previous email..." - "I'm circling back on [topic]..." - "Apologies for the additional email, but I wanted to check..." ## Guardrails **Key requirements:** 1. **Clear purpose**: Every email needs an identifiable goal 2. **Explicit asks**: State what you need so recipients can act without guessing 3. **Professional tone**: Appropriate for academic/scientific context 4. **Proofread**: Errors undermine credibility 5. **Appropriate length**: Respect recipients' time 6. **Complete information**: Include everything needed to respond **Common pitfalls:** - ❌ **Buried ask**: Request hidden in paragraph 4 - ❌ **No deadline**: "When you get a chance" = never - ❌ **Wall of text**: Long unbroken paragraphs - ❌ **Too casual**: "Hey" to journal editor - ❌ **Too formal**: Stilted language to close colleague - ❌ **Missing context**: Assuming they remember previous exchange - ❌ **Multiple topics**: Should be separate emails ## Quick Reference **Key resources:** - **[resources/template.md](resources/template.md)**: Subject lines, openings, closings, full templates - **[resources/evaluators/rubric_email.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_email.json)**: Quality scoring **Subject line formulas:** - Request: "Meeting request: [Topic]" - Follow-up: "Follow-up: [Original topic]" - Submission: "Submission: [Title]" - Response: "RE: [Topic] - [Your action]" - Question: "Question about [Specific topic]" **Time estimates:** - Quick email: 5-10 minutes - Cover letter: 15-30 minutes - Response to reviewers: 1-4 hours (depending on revisions) **Before sending checklist:** - [ ] Purpose clear? - [ ] Ask explicit? - [ ] Context provided? - [ ] Tone appropriate? - [ ] Proofread? - [ ] Attachments attached? **Inputs required:** - Purpose/desired outcome - Recipient relationship - Key information to convey - Any constraints (deadline, politics) **Outputs produced:** - Polished email draft - (Optional) Commentary on tone/structure
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".