Turn clarified research into a structured plain-language summary for colleagues outside the field. It highlights the study goal, what was studied, key findings, evidence limits, and practical next steps, with wording adapted to clinical, lab, computational, product, or management audiences.
Rewrites technical research content into a structured lay summary that cross-disciplinary teams can quickly understand and act on. Use when the user wants to explain research to colleagues outside their specialty — clinicians, wet-lab scientists, bioinformaticians, product managers, or leadership. Trigger on: "lay summary", "explain my research to the team", "non-technical summary", "cross-disciplinary summary", "translate my findings", "align our team on the study", or any request to communicate research goals, findings, or next steps to a mixed or non-specialist audience. Part of the AIPOCH Academic Writing skill hub. Sits midstream: after research content is clarified, before downstream deliverables like slide decks or graphical abstracts.
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Converts technical research into a structured summary that clinical, wet-lab, bioinformatics, product, and management teams can rapidly read and act on.
This skill sits midstream:
If the user's research content is still vague or unstructured, prompt them to clarify objectives and key findings first. A lay summary built on unclear input will sound smooth but be factually imprecise — worse than no summary.
Ask the user to provide any of:
Also ask: Who is the primary audience?
mixed (default) — all teams listedclinical — clinicians, medical staffwet-lab — bench scientists, experimentalistsbioinformatics — computational scientists, data analystsproduct — product managers, translational teamsmanagement — leadership, funders, executivesIf unspecified, use mixed and include all relevant audience bullets.
Before writing, internally map the input to these five elements:
| Element | What to find |
|---|---|
| Study goal | Why was this done? What problem does it address? |
| System / population | What was studied? (patients, cells, datasets, samples…) |
| Main finding | What did the data show? Be specific — avoid vague positives. |
| Evidence boundary | What can this support? What remains uncertain or untested? |
| Next action | What should each team know or do because of this? |
If any element is missing from the input, note it in the output and invite the user to fill in the gap.
Use the output template in assets/output-template.md.
Writing principles:
For audience-specific language guidance, read references/audience-guide.md.
Before delivering output, verify:
If a check fails, revise before presenting.
assets/output-template.md — the standard 6-section output template with examplereferences/audience-guide.md — language and framing guidance per audience typeNo reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Condense an academic paper into a structured abstract of up to 250 words, organized by background, objective, methods, results, and conclusion. It aims to retain key quantitative findings and supports papers from several research fields; figures and charts are not interpreted.
Trim English academic abstracts to a target word count while preserving key findings, statistics, and the background-to-conclusion structure. Choose conservative, balanced, or aggressive compression, check word counts, and review the edited text for readability and accuracy.
Refines long medical drafts, reports, or literature notes into formal, single-paragraph Chinese and English abstracts in an SCI journal style. It can place both abstracts in a Markdown report while keeping claims grounded in the source text.
Creates three to five concise English Highlights for journal submission from manuscript text or supported files. It adapts bullets to the article type, keeps each within 85 characters, and grounds every claim in the supplied source without inventing results.
Design comparative drug safety studies using FAERS, the FDA’s adverse event reporting database, within one defined safety area. The plan compares drugs or classes, lays out workload options and analysis steps, and distinguishes detected signals from conclusions the data cannot support.
Predicts absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion properties for small molecules from their structures. Use the results to compare compounds, screen libraries, and review drug-likeness scores in structured outputs. Predictions support prioritization and need experimental validation.