跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

academic-abstract-refiner

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

Refines long medical academic texts into SCI-style unstructured Chinese and English abstracts; use when you need to condense drafts/reports/summaries into bilingual abstracts and generate Summary_Report.md.

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Condensing a medical study report into bilingual abstracts
  • Preparing unstructured abstracts from literature notes
  • Creating a Markdown report with Chinese and English abstracts

包含的文件(4)

  • SKILL.md5.9 KB
  • academic-abstract-refiner_audit_result_v2.json12.1 KB
  • scripts/refine_abstract.py1.2 KB
  • scripts/validate_skill.py679 B

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Source: https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills

Validation Shortcut

Run this minimal command first to verify the supported execution path:

python scripts/refine_abstract.py --help

academic-abstract-refiner

When to Use

  • Converting a long medical review draft into a concise, SCI-style unstructured abstract (single paragraph).
  • Summarizing experimental or clinical study reports into bilingual (Chinese/English) abstracts for submission or internal review.
  • Condensing multi-paper literature notes or evidence syntheses into a publication-ready abstract without section headers.
  • Producing a standardized Markdown deliverable (Summary_Report.md) that contains both Chinese and English abstracts.
  • Ensuring the abstract content strictly reflects the source text (no invented data, outcomes, or conclusions).

Key Features

  • Generates unstructured (single-paragraph) abstracts in Chinese and English.
  • Enforces an academic, formal tone aligned with SCI journal abstract conventions.
  • Produces a single Markdown report: Summary_Report.md.
  • Script-based rendering that does not call any model APIs and requires no API key.
  • Supports input as long plain text (e.g., .txt content or pasted text) and outputs a clean report.

Dependencies

  • Python >=3.8

Example Usage

Generate the final report after you already have the refined abstracts (produced by the agent):

python scripts/refine_abstract.py \
  --abstract-zh "(、)。" \
  --abstract-en "Paste the English abstract here (single paragraph, no subheadings)." \
  --output Summary_Report.md

Expected output:

  • Summary_Report.md containing:
    • Chinese abstract
    • English abstract

Implementation Details

  • Input/Output contract

    • Inputs are two strings: --abstract-zh and --abstract-en.
    • Output is a Markdown file path via --output (default: Summary_Report.md).
  • Abstract format constraints

    • Both abstracts must be unstructured: a single paragraph without fixed templates such as Objective/Methods/Results/Conclusion.
    • Language should remain formal and academic, consistent with SCI abstract style.
  • Content integrity rules

    • The abstracts must be derived only from the original source text.
    • Do not fabricate numerical results, experimental details, or conclusions not present in the source.
  • Execution model

    • The rendering script is a local formatter/writer: it does not invoke any LLM and does not require API credentials.
    • All abstract generation/refinement is assumed to be completed by the agent prior to running the script.

When Not to Use

  • Do not use this skill when the required source data, identifiers, files, or credentials are missing.
  • Do not use this skill when the user asks for fabricated results, unsupported claims, or out-of-scope conclusions.
  • Do not use this skill when a simpler direct answer is more appropriate than the documented workflow.

Required Inputs

  • A clearly specified task goal aligned with the documented scope.
  • All required files, identifiers, parameters, or environment variables before execution.
  • Any domain constraints, formatting requirements, and expected output destination if applicable.

Recommended Workflow

  1. Validate the request against the skill boundary and confirm all required inputs are present.
  2. Select the documented execution path and prefer the simplest supported command or procedure.
  3. Produce the expected output using the documented file format, schema, or narrative structure.
  4. Run a final validation pass for completeness, consistency, and safety before returning the result.

Output Contract

  • Return a structured deliverable that is directly usable without reformatting.
  • If a file is produced, prefer a deterministic output name such as academic_abstract_refiner_result.md unless the skill documentation defines a better convention.
  • Include a short validation summary describing what was checked, what assumptions were made, and any remaining limitations.

Validation and Safety Rules

  • Validate required inputs before execution and stop early when mandatory fields or files are missing.
  • Do not fabricate measurements, references, findings, or conclusions that are not supported by the provided source material.
  • Emit a clear warning when credentials, privacy constraints, safety boundaries, or unsupported requests affect the result.
  • Keep the output safe, reproducible, and within the documented scope at all times.

Failure Handling

  • If validation fails, explain the exact missing field, file, or parameter and show the minimum fix required.
  • If an external dependency or script fails, surface the command path, likely cause, and the next recovery step.
  • If partial output is returned, label it clearly and identify which checks could not be completed.

Quick Validation

Run this minimal verification path before full execution when possible:

python scripts/refine_abstract.py --help

Deterministic Output Rules

  • Use the same section order for every supported request of this skill.
  • Keep output field names stable and do not rename documented keys across examples.
  • If a value is unavailable, emit an explicit placeholder instead of omitting the field.

Completion Checklist

  • Confirm all required inputs were present and valid.
  • Confirm the supported execution path completed without unresolved errors.
  • Confirm the final deliverable matches the documented format exactly.
  • Confirm assumptions, limitations, and warnings are surfaced explicitly.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Creating a concise abstract from a research paper
  • Summarizing empirical studies while retaining key statistics
  • Preparing structured summaries across multiple papers
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Cutting an abstract to meet a journal word limit
  • Preparing a conference abstract with a strict word count
  • Checking an abstract's word count before submission
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Draft journal Highlights from an abstract or manuscript
  • Summarize a meta-analysis or review for submission
  • Extract key findings from a supported PDF or DOCX
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing drug classes within one adverse event area
  • Planning a FAERS study with active comparators
  • Adding declared subgroup or onset characterization
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Compare predicted ADME profiles for small-molecule candidates
  • Screen a compound library for drug-likeness
  • Rank candidates against target property ranges
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

Turn adverse event case details into structured safety narratives for regulatory reporting. The skill checks required fields, organizes the event timeline, supports MedDRA coding and causality assessment, and formats drafts for CIOMS I, ICH E2B R3, or FDA MedWatch.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Drafting an ICSR narrative from an adverse event case
  • Checking a case for missing CIOMS I fields
  • Organizing drug and event dates into a timeline
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

查看 aipoch 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题