343 lines
18 KiB
Markdown
343 lines
18 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
name: qqsci
|
||
description: Draft, restructure, polish, or audit materials-science manuscript sections using evidence-first, high-impact-journal writing logic, with optional Zotero/Obsidian/DeepSeek literature-note routing. Use for materials chemistry, nanomaterials, functional materials, devices, catalysis, energy storage, biomaterials, sensors, flexible electronics, MOF/COF, MXene, perovskite, polymer, composite, and interface/mechanism papers, especially when the user provides Chinese notes, figures, characterization data, Zotero literature notes, DeepSeek-generated paper notes, target-journal questions, or wants Nature-like but materials-specific academic prose.
|
||
version: 0.1.0
|
||
author: Local skill modeled after nature-writing/nature-polishing workflows for materials-science manuscripts
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# QQsci Materials-Science Manuscript Writing
|
||
|
||
Use this skill when the user wants to write, rebuild, polish, translate, or
|
||
review manuscript prose for materials-science papers. The goal is not generic
|
||
English polish, but a materials-specific argument that connects composition,
|
||
structure, properties, mechanism, device/application performance, and limits.
|
||
|
||
It can also route through the user's Zotero/Obsidian literature-note workflow:
|
||
extract keywords from the manuscript topic or draft, use QQnote-generated
|
||
Zotero child notes or paper tables as literature inputs, ask DeepSeek to screen
|
||
those candidate notes into strongly related and weakly related papers under
|
||
QQsci's rules, ask DeepSeek to draft a structured QQwrite brief from the
|
||
screened papers, then have QQsci check the brief before passing it to QQwrite.
|
||
|
||
## Core stance
|
||
|
||
- Evidence comes first. Do not invent synthesis details, mechanisms,
|
||
characterization results, performance metrics, controls, references, or
|
||
novelty.
|
||
- Build the materials logic before polishing language.
|
||
- Separate `what was made`, `what structure it has`, `what property changes`,
|
||
`why it changes`, and `what it enables`.
|
||
- Keep claims ambitious but bounded by the provided data.
|
||
- For missing values, figure numbers, journal names, references, or controls,
|
||
use `xxx` placeholders or state the gap explicitly.
|
||
- If the user's input is Chinese or mixed Chinese-English, produce polished
|
||
English first unless they ask for Chinese output; then add brief Chinese notes
|
||
on structure or missing evidence.
|
||
|
||
## When to open extra files
|
||
|
||
| File | Open when |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| [references/materials-architecture.md](references/materials-architecture.md) | Planning a full paper, abstract, introduction, results storyline, discussion, title, or journal positioning |
|
||
| [references/evidence-chain.md](references/evidence-chain.md) | Checking whether characterization, controls, mechanism, and performance data support the claims |
|
||
| [references/section-patterns.md](references/section-patterns.md) | Drafting or revising specific sections such as abstract, introduction, results, discussion, conclusion, title, or methods |
|
||
| [references/chinese-author-workflow.md](references/chinese-author-workflow.md) | Rebuilding Chinese notes, figure notes, lab-record style drafts, or direct Chinese-to-English manuscript prose |
|
||
| [references/review-audit.md](references/review-audit.md) | User asks for reviewer-style critique, rejection-risk audit, novelty check, claim-evidence map, or pre-submission self-review |
|
||
| [references/comparative-review-audit.md](references/comparative-review-audit.md) | User wants a Nature-response-like pre-review based on comparison with strongly related papers, including missing experiments, format, figures, spelling, and terminology consistency |
|
||
| [references/submission-package-audit.md](references/submission-package-audit.md) | User provides or mentions a submission package with manuscript, Supporting Information, highlights, cover letter, figures, SI figures, TOC, graphical abstract, or related Word/PPT files |
|
||
| [references/source-map.md](references/source-map.md) | User asks where evidence, parameters, figure-derived values, citation suggestions, or manuscript claims came from; use when building performance tables, tracing original-paper data, revising claims with citations, or producing a manuscript evidence map |
|
||
| [references/literature-routing.md](references/literature-routing.md) | User wants Zotero/Obsidian/DeepSeek note search, strong/weak related-paper screening, keyword extraction, or literature-grounded rewriting |
|
||
| [references/qqwrite-brief.md](references/qqwrite-brief.md) | DeepSeek screening results need to be converted into a QQwrite writing brief or checked before QQwrite consumes them |
|
||
| [references/word-citation-comments.md](references/word-citation-comments.md) | User wants citation insertion guidance in Word, reference placement, DOI-only comments, or annotated `.docx` citation suggestions |
|
||
| [references/zotero-obsidian-subskill.md](references/zotero-obsidian-subskill.md) | User asks QQsci to obtain or refresh literature-note inputs through QQnote, including Zotero child-note summaries or paper comparison tables |
|
||
| [references/configuration.md](references/configuration.md) | You need DeepSeek, Zotero, Obsidian, QQnote inheritance, config precedence, secret handling, or wrapper-script usage |
|
||
| [references/writing-templates.md](references/writing-templates.md) | User asks about AFM writing templates, Word article templates, manuscript formatting templates, or QQwrite template handoff |
|
||
| [references/journal-positioning.md](references/journal-positioning.md) | Target journal is missing, uncertain, or needs recommendation and writing-position adjustment |
|
||
|
||
## Intake
|
||
|
||
Before drafting or rewriting, identify:
|
||
|
||
- target section: title, abstract, introduction, results, discussion,
|
||
conclusion, graphical TOC text, cover letter, or full outline
|
||
- material system: composition, phase, morphology, substrate, interface,
|
||
additive, defect, heterostructure, or device architecture
|
||
- application: energy storage, catalysis, sensing, flexible electronics,
|
||
triboelectric/piezoelectric, photodetector, membrane, biomedical, structural,
|
||
environmental, or other use
|
||
- central advance: what is new compared with prior materials or designs
|
||
- evidence: synthesis, microscopy, spectroscopy, diffraction, surface analysis,
|
||
mechanical/electrical/electrochemical tests, simulations, controls, durability
|
||
and statistics
|
||
- boundary: where the mechanism, generality, performance, or application claim
|
||
stops
|
||
- target journal and word limit, if provided
|
||
- literature source: Zotero child notes, Obsidian linked notes, Zotero item
|
||
metadata/full text, uploaded papers, or external searches
|
||
|
||
If the central advance, decisive evidence, or boundary is absent, expose the gap
|
||
before drafting. You may still produce a manuscript-ready scaffold with
|
||
placeholders.
|
||
|
||
## Writing workflow
|
||
|
||
1. Build a one-sentence materials argument:
|
||
`In [application/problem], we design [material/interface/architecture] to
|
||
address [bottleneck], supported by [structure evidence], [property evidence],
|
||
and [application evidence], with [boundary].`
|
||
2. Choose the section architecture from
|
||
`references/materials-architecture.md`.
|
||
3. Map each paragraph to one job: field need, materials bottleneck, design
|
||
principle, synthesis, structure validation, property change, mechanism,
|
||
application performance, comparison, limitation, or implication.
|
||
4. Draft from evidence outward. Keep mechanism claims close to the data that
|
||
support them.
|
||
5. Calibrate verbs: `show`, `demonstrate`, `indicate`, `suggest`, `attribute`,
|
||
`enable`, `may`, `could`.
|
||
6. Run an overclaim check for novelty, universality, mechanism causality,
|
||
durability, scalability, and practical relevance.
|
||
7. When evidence, citations, parameters, or figure-derived values are involved,
|
||
open `references/source-map.md` and keep a source map linking each claim or
|
||
value to its original location.
|
||
8. Return polished prose plus concise notes on assumptions and missing inputs.
|
||
|
||
## Source map requirement
|
||
|
||
A `source map` is the evidence-location table for QQsci work. It records which
|
||
manuscript claim, parameter, comparison value, or citation suggestion came from
|
||
which source and where it appears in that source.
|
||
|
||
Use a source map whenever the task involves:
|
||
|
||
- citation-supported writing or citation placement
|
||
- performance comparison tables
|
||
- original-paper parameter extraction
|
||
- figure/SI/table-derived values
|
||
- reviewer-risk audits that depend on missing or weak evidence
|
||
- Word manuscript comments that need DOI-only comments plus a separate Markdown
|
||
explanation
|
||
|
||
Open `references/source-map.md` for the output schema. Do not cite or reuse a
|
||
number only because it appears in a note; preserve the source location, evidence
|
||
type, extraction method, and caveat. If the value comes from figure reading or
|
||
unit conversion, mark it as approximate and keep the conversion rule.
|
||
|
||
## Word manuscript editing defaults
|
||
|
||
当用户要求 QQsci 基于本地 Word 原稿、主图和 Supporting Information 生成或修改论文初稿时，默认遵守以下规则，除非用户明确要求另存为独立交付包：
|
||
|
||
- 如果用户要求修改原稿，直接在用户指定的目标 manuscript 文件上工作；不要额外创建草稿文件夹、备份文件或旁支文档，除非用户明确要求，或确实出于安全需要。
|
||
- 保留用户现有文件名。如果项目中使用 `Maunscript.docx` 和 `SI.docx`，就沿用这些名称，不要自行改成规范英文名。
|
||
- 当任务是生成完整初稿时，把主图插入 manuscript 文档本身；每张图应靠近对应的完整 AFM 风格图注，并保证图号顺序与重排后的正文故事线一致。
|
||
- 插入 manuscript 的主图默认统一设置为 15 cm 宽，并保持原始长宽比，除非用户指定其他尺寸。
|
||
- manuscript 正文文字段落默认设置为首行缩进两字符、两端对齐；纯图片段落保持居中。
|
||
- 最终 manuscript 写回目标文件后，不要在项目中遗留临时抽取文件、中间 Markdown、重命名副本或生成的备份文件夹，除非用户要求保留。
|
||
- Supporting Information 默认作为单独的来源/配套文档处理；除非用户要求重写 SI，否则不要默认重命名或重新生成 SI。
|
||
|
||
## Writing templates
|
||
|
||
When the user asks to use an AFM, journal, or Word article template, open
|
||
`references/writing-templates.md`.
|
||
|
||
QQsci does not own Word template assets. Route template-driven manuscript
|
||
formatting to QQwrite.
|
||
|
||
Current template owner:
|
||
|
||
- QQwrite: `assets/templates/afm/article-template.docx` for the AFM article
|
||
Word template.
|
||
|
||
Use QQsci to prepare evidence, section logic, target-journal positioning, and
|
||
package-level audit inputs, then hand the manuscript and selected template to
|
||
QQwrite for Word-template execution.
|
||
|
||
## Literature-note routing workflow
|
||
|
||
Use this when the user wants the manuscript optimized using previous
|
||
DeepSeek/AwesomeGPT Zotero notes generated by QQnote or equivalent sources.
|
||
|
||
1. Extract manuscript keywords from the topic, draft, abstract, figures, or SI:
|
||
material names, material family, device/application, mechanism, performance
|
||
metrics, synthesis strategy, target journal, and competing concepts.
|
||
2. If the target journal is absent, ask the author for it. If they want advice,
|
||
open `references/journal-positioning.md` and recommend several tiers.
|
||
3. Open `references/literature-routing.md` and perform QQsci's own relevance
|
||
routing against the existing notes or QQnote-generated comparison tables.
|
||
The large-scale strong/weak paper screening pass must be run by DeepSeek when
|
||
DeepSeek is configured.
|
||
4. Ask DeepSeek to screen notes into:
|
||
- `strongly related`: same material, same material family plus same device,
|
||
same mechanism, same target journal/neighbor journal, or direct benchmark.
|
||
- `weakly related`: same direction, adjacent material family, same
|
||
characterization logic, similar device architecture, or useful writing
|
||
pattern.
|
||
5. Ask DeepSeek to generate a `qqwrite_brief` from the screened papers when the
|
||
next step is QQwrite drafting or template-driven `.docx` generation. Open
|
||
`references/qqwrite-brief.md` for the schema and checks.
|
||
6. QQsci checks the brief for required fields, DOI preservation, obvious
|
||
overclaims, weak-paper misuse, and missing author evidence before handoff.
|
||
7. Use strongly related papers for novelty, gap, introduction, benchmark, and
|
||
citation placement.
|
||
8. Use weakly related papers for broader field framing, mechanism language,
|
||
section architecture, and cautious comparison.
|
||
9. For Word manuscript citation suggestions, open
|
||
`references/word-citation-comments.md` and add native Word comments that
|
||
contain DOI strings only.
|
||
10. Open `references/source-map.md` and return a source map before or with the
|
||
manuscript revision. Never cite a paper only because the title seems similar.
|
||
|
||
## Comparative pre-review workflow
|
||
|
||
Use this when the user asks for reviewer-style checking, `nature-response`
|
||
functionality, pre-submission audit, 格式检查, 图片检查, 拼写错误, or terminology
|
||
consistency.
|
||
|
||
If the user provides a submission package, not just one manuscript file, open
|
||
`references/submission-package-audit.md` first and audit the files as a single
|
||
submission set.
|
||
|
||
Do not judge the manuscript from general intuition alone. First use the
|
||
strongly related papers identified by `references/literature-routing.md` as the
|
||
comparison set, then open `references/comparative-review-audit.md`.
|
||
|
||
Workflow:
|
||
|
||
1. Build or reuse a strong-related-paper set: same material, same device,
|
||
same mechanism, benchmark paper, or same target-journal positioning.
|
||
2. Compare the manuscript against that set for missing evidence, missing
|
||
controls, weaker mechanism support, weaker benchmarking, figure organization,
|
||
and journal-format differences.
|
||
3. Audit figures separately: panel logic, labels, scale bars, statistics,
|
||
units, color/style consistency, caption completeness, resolution risk, and
|
||
whether each figure supports the claimed conclusion.
|
||
4. Audit language mechanically: spelling, abbreviation definitions, inconsistent
|
||
sample names, inconsistent units, tense, capitalization, hyphenation, and
|
||
terminology drift.
|
||
5. Produce a tracker with issue ID, comparison basis, severity, location,
|
||
fix, and whether author input is needed.
|
||
6. For a Word manuscript, put local sentence-level citation suggestions as
|
||
DOI-only comments; put broader review findings in Markdown.
|
||
|
||
## Citation comments in Word
|
||
|
||
When the user wants citation insertion help for a `.docx`, do not directly
|
||
create Zotero citation fields. Add native Word comments at the relevant sentence
|
||
or clause instead.
|
||
|
||
Default comment content:
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
10.xxxx/xxxxx
|
||
10.xxxx/yyyyy
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Rules:
|
||
|
||
- DOI only, one DOI per line.
|
||
- No explanation, title, author, journal, Zotero key, or citation reason inside
|
||
the Word comment.
|
||
- If a candidate paper has no DOI, omit it unless the user explicitly permits a
|
||
title or Zotero key fallback.
|
||
- The annotated file must be saved as a copy; never overwrite the original
|
||
manuscript.
|
||
- Put any reasoning, claim-to-reference planning, or reviewer notes in a
|
||
separate Markdown report, not inside the Word comment.
|
||
|
||
## Zotero/Obsidian child-note subskill
|
||
|
||
When the user imports new papers and asks to generate Zotero child-note
|
||
summaries or paper comparison tables with QQnote, use
|
||
`references/zotero-obsidian-subskill.md`.
|
||
|
||
Important defaults:
|
||
|
||
- QQnote is only the note/table generation tool.
|
||
- QQsci owns the top-level DeepSeek, Zotero, Obsidian, and QQnote routing
|
||
configuration for manuscript workflows. Open `references/configuration.md`
|
||
before calling QQnote from QQsci.
|
||
- QQnote must remain independently usable through its own environment variables,
|
||
vault `.env`, or AwesomeGPT/Zotero preferences when run outside QQsci.
|
||
- QQsci owns keyword extraction, strong/weak related-paper screening, target
|
||
journal positioning, comparative review, submission-package audit, and
|
||
DOI-only Word citation comments.
|
||
- Generate or update Zotero child notes first.
|
||
- Obsidian comes second through Zotero Integration links and Dataview.
|
||
- Keep API keys in local private config, not in chat.
|
||
- Treat Zotero local API as read-oriented unless a write-capable Web API,
|
||
connector, or helper path is explicitly configured.
|
||
- Batch work must be resumable and skip already processed papers.
|
||
|
||
## Materials-specific logic
|
||
|
||
### Abstract
|
||
|
||
Use:
|
||
|
||
`application need -> materials bottleneck -> design strategy -> key structure or
|
||
interface evidence -> performance result -> mechanism or implication -> boundary`
|
||
|
||
Include quantitative metrics when provided. Avoid abstract-only phrases such as
|
||
`excellent performance`, `simple method`, or `broad application prospects`
|
||
without evidence.
|
||
|
||
### Introduction
|
||
|
||
Use:
|
||
|
||
`field demand -> current material limitation -> prior design strategies -> why
|
||
they remain insufficient -> this material design -> what it proves`
|
||
|
||
Do not turn the Introduction into a list of material classes. Group prior work
|
||
by mechanism, limitation, or design strategy.
|
||
|
||
### Results narrative
|
||
|
||
Use an evidence ladder:
|
||
|
||
`material design -> synthesis/structure confirmation -> composition/interface
|
||
evidence -> property change -> mechanism test -> device/application performance
|
||
-> durability/generalization`
|
||
|
||
Each subsection should open with a claim-first sentence, then provide the
|
||
figure-backed evidence.
|
||
|
||
### Mechanism paragraphs
|
||
|
||
Separate:
|
||
|
||
- observed phenomenon
|
||
- structural or chemical origin
|
||
- supporting characterization
|
||
- alternative explanations that controls rule out
|
||
- remaining uncertainty
|
||
|
||
Use `suggests` or `is consistent with` when the data are indirect.
|
||
|
||
### Discussion and conclusion
|
||
|
||
Discussion interprets why the material works and where the interpretation may
|
||
fail. Conclusion states the contribution, decisive evidence, implication, and
|
||
boundary. Do not introduce new data.
|
||
|
||
### Title
|
||
|
||
Prefer:
|
||
|
||
`material/system + design action/mechanism + application/capability`
|
||
|
||
Avoid slogans, unsupported `high-performance`, and titles that hide the material
|
||
identity.
|
||
|
||
## Output format
|
||
|
||
Default output:
|
||
|
||
1. `Draft:` with the requested manuscript prose.
|
||
2. `Materials argument:` one compact sentence.
|
||
3. `Claim-evidence map:` major claims with evidence and status.
|
||
4. `Missing inputs or risks:` only material gaps.
|
||
5. `Revision notes:` brief Chinese notes if the input was Chinese or mixed.
|
||
|
||
For reviewer-style tasks, lead with findings ordered by severity, then provide
|
||
fixes and a concise revised version if requested.
|