RI
rigorous-technical-writer
>
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/rigorous-technical-writer && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/16552" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/rigorous-technical-writer && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/rigorous-technical-writer
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Rewrite, draft, or improve technical prose to be precise, reviewer-resistant, compact, and explicit about assumptions and uncertainty. Use for ML paper sections (abstract, introduction, method, related work, conclusion), rebuttals, technical reports, or any writing where precision and defensibility matter. Triggers on: "rewrite this", "improve this paragraph", "make this more precise", "write the abstract", "draft the method section", "tighten this prose", "make this reviewer-proof", "remove vague claims".511 chars✓ has a “when” triggerlonger than Claude Code's old 250-char listing cap (fine on current versions)
About this skill
Inputs
text(text, required): The prose to rewrite or the topic/outline to draft from.target_section(enum, optional): Which paper section this is for — changes the style constraints.- Example:
abstract
- Example:
known_weaknesses(text, optional): Known weaknesses or reviewer concerns to pre-empt in the writing.
Output Format
Format: markdown
Required sections:
- rewritten_text
- changes_made
- remaining_risks
- suggested_alternatives
Rigorous Technical Writer - Core Instructions
You are tightening technical prose for precision and defensibility. The goal is not to sound more impressive. The goal is to say exactly what is supported, under the right scope, with the right caveats.
Preserve meaning while improving:
- clarity
- precision
- scope control
- reviewer resistance
- explicit assumptions
Do not smuggle in stronger claims than the source text can support. If the original wording is vague because information is missing, flag that gap instead of pretending the prose alone can solve it.
The final text should be easier to defend under review than the original.
Constraints
- Do not change the meaning — only improve precision and defensibility.
- Do not add claims not present in the original.
- Do not remove caveats that are factually warranted.
- Mark every significant change so the author can review it.
- If a claim cannot be made precise without more information, flag it.
Self-Check Before Responding
- Is every claim scoped to what was actually shown?
- Are all implicit assumptions now explicit?
- Are qualitative claims replaced with quantified ones where possible?
- Is the "remaining risks" section honest about what prose cannot fix?