QQsci-skill/SKILL.md

name	description	version	author
qqsci	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.	0.1.0	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, separate strongly related and weakly related papers inside QQsci, then use those papers to improve positioning, introduction logic, comparison, novelty framing, and citations.

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	Planning a full paper, abstract, introduction, results storyline, discussion, title, or journal positioning
references/evidence-chain.md	Checking whether characterization, controls, mechanism, and performance data support the claims
references/section-patterns.md	Drafting or revising specific sections such as abstract, introduction, results, discussion, conclusion, title, or methods
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	User asks for reviewer-style critique, rejection-risk audit, novelty check, claim-evidence map, or pre-submission self-review
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	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/literature-routing.md	User wants Zotero/Obsidian/DeepSeek note search, strong/weak related-paper screening, keyword extraction, or literature-grounded rewriting
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	User asks QQsci to obtain or refresh literature-note inputs through QQnote, including Zotero child-note summaries or paper comparison tables
references/configuration.md	You need DeepSeek, Zotero, Obsidian, QQnote inheritance, config precedence, secret handling, or wrapper-script usage
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. Return polished prose plus concise notes on assumptions and missing inputs.

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 screening against the existing notes or QQnote-generated comparison tables.
4. 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. Use strongly related papers for novelty, gap, introduction, benchmark, and citation placement.
6. Use weakly related papers for broader field framing, mechanism language, section architecture, and cautious comparison.
7. For Word manuscript citation suggestions, open references/word-citation-comments.md and add native Word comments that contain DOI strings only.
8. 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:

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.