Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› jacs-results-framing
jacs-results-framing
GitHub针对JACS稿件，优化化学进展叙事与声明。通过构建证据链、明确广度驱动因素及校准新颖性主张，解决摘要引言模糊或仅罗列实验的问题，提升故事逻辑与影响力，不生成新数据。
Trigger Scenarios
摘要或引言未能清晰界定化学进展
审稿人或合作者质疑工作的真正创新点
文章读起来像实验列表而非统一论证
重要性仅被断言而未由数据证明
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jacs-results-framing -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jacs-results-framing",
"description": "Use when the chemical advance and its significance are not yet sharp for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript. Shapes the narrative and claims — it does not generate new data or fix characterization gaps."
}
Framing the Chemical Advance (jacs-results-framing)
When to trigger
- You have results but the abstract/intro does not land a clear "advance"
- Reviewers (or co-authors) ask "what is genuinely new here?"
- The story reads as a list of experiments rather than one argument
- The significance is asserted ("important", "novel") rather than demonstrated
The advance, stated as a claim chain
A JACS narrative is a chain where each link is backed by data:
- Problem — the chemical question or limitation, framed for broad interest.
- Advance — the new reaction / structure / material / method / mechanism that addresses it.
- Evidence — the specific data that prove the advance (yields/ee, spectra, X-ray, kinetics).
- Generality / mechanism — why it is not a one-off (scope table; mechanistic basis).
- Significance — what becomes possible now that did not before, across chemistry.
If any link rests on assertion rather than data, route to jacs-methods.
Framing the "broad interest"
Pick the dominant breadth driver and make the intro about it:
| Breadth driver | How to frame it |
|---|---|
| Generality | Emphasize substrate/functional-group scope, robustness, predictability |
| Concept | Emphasize the new principle (mode of reactivity, bonding, structure–property law) |
| Enabling utility | Emphasize what synthesis/measurement is newly possible; show a hard target |
| Selectivity | Quantify the selectivity gain (ee, dr, regio-, chemo-) vs prior art |
Title and abstract discipline
- Title states the chemistry, not the activity ("Catalytic Asymmetric X via Y", not "Studies toward X"). Avoid vague boosters.
- Abstract = problem → advance → key quantitative evidence → significance, in a few sentences. Put at least one hard number (yield, ee, TON, rate, λ, R-factor).
- The TOC/abstract graphic must visually encode the central advance, not decorate.
Calibrating novelty claims
- Compare against the closest prior art explicitly; state the delta in one line.
- Use "first" only if you have searched and can defend it; prefer "we show that".
- Match the strength of the claim to the strength of the data (controls, scope, mechanism).
Checklist
- One sentence names the advance and its breadth driver
- Each link in the claim chain points to specific evidence
- The closest prior art is cited and the delta stated
- Abstract contains at least one hard quantitative result
- TOC graphic encodes the central advance
- No significance claim exceeds what the data show
Anti-patterns
- "Novel" as a substitute for stating what is new
- Burying the advance under methodological detail in the intro
- Over-claiming generality from a narrow, hand-picked substrate set
- Significance framed as field hype rather than concrete new capability
Operating pass for Journal of the American Chemical Society
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the chemical novelty, characterization chain, controls, and scope or mechanism evidence; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: chemistry reviewers who expect a molecule/material/reaction claim to be supported by rigorous characterization and mechanistic insight.
- Do the pass: Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger rather than a prose-only diagnosis; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript locationrows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue. - Sibling guard: compare against ACS Central Science for broad conceptual reach, Angewandte for communication style, specialized ACS journals for narrower chemistry; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.mdhas been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Advance】one-sentence claim
【Breadth driver】generality / concept / utility / selectivity
【Evidence map】advance → [data that proves it]
【Prior-art delta】vs <ref>: <one line>
【Gaps to close】route to jacs-methods if any link is unsupported
【Next】jacs-methods → jacs-figures
Related resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— what evidence each technique provides
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:00
