oma-academic-writing

Academic Writing: Publication-Grade English Prose

Scheduling

Goal

Produce, revise, and audit publication-grade academic English prose so that every output simultaneously satisfies the Sentence Structure Protocol, Verb Protocol, Hedging Protocol, and Anti-AI Compliance Checklist, with every claim mapped to verifiable evidence.

Intent signature

• "draft this essay / report / executive summary / conclusion / literature review"
• "rewrite this paragraph in academic English"
• "polish this draft to top-band quality" / "revise to match the rubric"
• "run an anti-AI audit on this prose"
• "check sentence structure variety" / "fix monotonous rhythm"
• "the prose sounds AI-generated, make it pass"
• "verify claims against evidence" / "reverse outline this section"

When to use

• Drafting or revising academic reports, essays, or analysis sections
• Writing executive summaries, conclusions, or literature reviews
• Rewriting AI-sounding prose into natural academic English
• Polishing draft text to achieve top-band rubric quality (HD, A, top-band, etc.)
• Reviewing prose for sentence variety, verb quality, hedging, and anti-AI compliance
• Any task requiring formal academic English output bound by a rubric

When NOT to use

• Translation tasks → use oma-translation
• Source discovery, citation gathering, or scholarly literature search → use oma-scholar
• Rubric / assignment-spec parsing and task decomposition → use oma-pm
• Code documentation, README, or API reference text → use the relevant domain skill (oma-frontend, oma-backend, oma-mobile, oma-db, etc.)
• Informal communication, chat, or marketing copy → no skill needed
• Non-English academic writing → call oma-translation for the target language after drafting in English

Expected inputs

• mode: one of draft | revise | review
• rubric_or_constraint: assignment brief, rubric file, or word/structure limits (path or inline text)
• existing_draft: prior text to revise or audit (path or inline text); required for revise and review
• source_data: available evidence, figures, citations the writer may use
• target_register: defaults to formal academic English with American spelling (en-US)

Expected outputs

• draft mode: section heading + drafted prose + Writing Notes (sentence mix, key verbs, anti-AI flags resolved, paragraph lengths) + Claim-Evidence Map
• revise mode: original block, revised block, list of specific changes (verb upgrades, structure variation, anti-AI fixes)
• review mode: PASS/FAIL Compliance Report across Sentence Structure, Verb Quality, Anti-AI, Specificity, Hedging, Paragraph Clarity, Rhythm/Burstiness, Claim-Evidence Alignment, plus recommended fixes

Dependencies

• resources/anti-ai-checklist.md: banned vocabulary, banned structural patterns, sentence-level checks
• resources/sentence-structure-reference.md: four sentence types, length targets, common errors
• resources/academic-verb-tiers.md: banned generic verbs and tiered academic-corpus replacements
• resources/hedging-guide.md: calibrated certainty expressions matched to evidence strength
• ../_shared/core/context-loading.md: task-relevant resource loading
• ../_shared/core/quality-principles.md: shared quality bar

Control-flow features

• Mode branching: draft vs revise vs review produce different output formats and pass sequences
• Rubric-quote gate: refuses to apply a rule until the literal constraint text is quoted from the source
• Citation gap branch: when a claim lacks evidence, weaken or remove rather than fabricate; optionally hand off to oma-scholar
• Language branch: non-English target hands off to oma-translation after the English pass
• Iterative AUDIT: every fix loops back through the anti-AI checklist before emit

Structural Flow

Entry

1. Identify the mode (draft, revise, review) and the rubric source.
2. Quote the exact constraint text (word limits, structural requirements, mandatory sections, rubric rows) before applying any rule.
3. If revising or reviewing, read the existing draft in full first; if drafting, confirm available source data and citations.
4. Index resources/ and pre-select the verb tier and sentence mix targets for the section.

Scenes

1. PREPARE: load rubric, existing draft, source data; record quoted constraints; pick sentence mix and 2–3 anchor verbs per paragraph.
2. ACQUIRE: read resources/sentence-structure-reference.md, academic-verb-tiers.md, and hedging-guide.md only for the patterns relevant to the current section.
3. ACT: write or revise prose with the four protocols enforced simultaneously: Sentence Structure (4 types, varied length, varied openers), Verb (no banned generic verbs as main verbs; prefer tier-1/2 academic verbs), Hedging (match strength to evidence), and Topic-Support-Conclude paragraphing.
4. VERIFY: audit against resources/anti-ai-checklist.md (vocabulary clusters, structural patterns, sentence-level checks); apply reverse outlining and build the Claim-Evidence Map; weaken or remove unsupported claims.
5. FINALIZE: read-aloud test, cohesion check, specificity audit, word-count verification, paragraph-length variation, rhythm check; emit per the mode's output format.

Transitions

• If a rubric line is ambiguous → quote it back to the user and ask for interpretation; do not infer combined rules.
• If a claim cannot be supported by available evidence → weaken with hedging or remove; if a citation gap is structural, NOTIFY oma-scholar.
• If the target language is non-English → finish the English pass, then hand off to oma-translation.
• If the same anti-AI flag survives one fix attempt → restructure the surrounding two sentences instead of word-substitution alone.
• If an output mode mismatch is detected (e.g., user asked for review but supplied a fresh prompt) → confirm the mode before producing output.

Failure and recovery

Exit

• Success: every protocol PASSes, the Claim-Evidence Map has no unsupported entries, word count complies, and the mode-specific output format is fully populated.
• Partial success: emit prose with explicit needs evidence / pending citation markers and report which protocol items remain at risk; flag handoff candidates.
• Failure: refuse to emit and report the blocking ambiguity (rubric quote missing, source data absent, contradictory constraints).

Logical Operations

Actions

Tools and instruments

• Read / Edit / Write for draft and rubric files
• resources/anti-ai-checklist.md, sentence-structure-reference.md, academic-verb-tiers.md, hedging-guide.md
• Topic-Support-Conclude paragraph template (inline)
• Claim-Evidence Map (inline 3-column table: Claim / Evidence / Status)
• Output-format blocks per mode (Draft / Revision / Review)

Canonical workflow path

1. READ rubric/draft and quote the exact literal constraint text; pin word limits, mandatory sections, and rubric rows.
2. PLAN each paragraph as Topic-Support-Conclude; pre-select the sentence-type mix and 2–3 anchor verbs from academic-verb-tiers.md.
3. DRAFT prose with Sentence Structure, Verb, Hedging, and Topic-Support-Conclude protocols enforced simultaneously.
4. AUDIT the draft against resources/anti-ai-checklist.md (banned vocabulary clusters, banned structural patterns, sentence-level checks) and fix every flag.
5. REVERSE-OUTLINE the section and build the Claim-Evidence Map; weaken or remove any unsupported claim.
6. POLISH with read-aloud, cohesion, specificity, word-count, rhythm, and paragraph-length-variation checks; emit in the mode's output format.

Resource scope

Preconditions

• A rubric / constraint or an existing draft (or both) is provided.
• The target register is academic English. If the final deliverable is non-English, the user has agreed to a downstream oma-translation handoff.
• The source data needed to support claims is available, or unsupported claims are explicitly allowed to be weakened or removed.

Effects and side effects

• Writes drafted, revised, or reviewed prose to the user's working location (file or inline).
• Does not modify resources/ reference files.
• Does not fetch external citations; defers to oma-scholar when discovery is required.
• May NOTIFY adjacent skills but does not auto-spawn them; user or workflow drives the actual handoff.

Guardrails

1. Every sentence must be verifiable; never fabricate data, statistics, or citations.
2. Quote-before-judgment: cite the literal constraint or rubric text before applying any rule.
3. Never combine distinct rules to invent a new constraint; apply rules exactly as written.
4. Banned generic verbs (show, have, make, do, get, use, give, say, put, see, come, go, take, find, know, think, want, try, need, seem, become, keep, help, start, turn, bring, run, hold, set) must not appear as main verbs; replace per academic-verb-tiers.md. Exception: natural copular/possessive is/are/has are allowed and preferred over inflated substitutes (anti-AI checklist §4).
5. Never place 3+ sentences of the same structural type consecutively; vary length (short 8–15, medium 16–25, long 26–40 words) and openers.
6. Match hedge strength to evidence strength per hedging-guide.md; never use absolute claim words (definitely, clearly, obviously) outside mathematical facts; never first-person I think / I believe.
7. Never cluster 3+ flagged AI-vocabulary items in a single paragraph; never insert promotional or inflated language; never append superficial -ing clauses for analysis.
8. Em dashes ≤ 1 per paragraph; semicolons ≤ 2 per 1000 words; sentence-case headers; no didactic disclaimers (It is important to note) or summary phrases (In summary, Overall).
9. Every claim must map to evidence in the Claim-Evidence Map; weaken or remove unsupported claims rather than emit them.
10. Read aloud before emit; if a sentence does not flow naturally, restructure it.

References

• Anti-AI checklist: resources/anti-ai-checklist.md
• Sentence-structure reference: resources/sentence-structure-reference.md
• Academic verb tiers: resources/academic-verb-tiers.md
• Hedging guide: resources/hedging-guide.md
• Shared context loading: ../_shared/core/context-loading.md
• Shared quality principles: ../_shared/core/quality-principles.md