Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› pnas-abstract
pnas-abstract
GitHub用于撰写符合PNAS规范的摘要，要求250词左右、单段落、自包含且量化。区分于Significance Statement，强调面向广泛科学受众的可读性，提供五步结构指导及禁忌词黑名单，适用于稿件后期润色。
Trigger Scenarios
需要撰写或润色PNAS论文摘要时
摘要被误写为方法回顾或缺乏结果数据时
摘要与Significance Statement内容混淆或重复时
摘要字数超标、含小标题或术语过多时
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pnas-abstract -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "pnas-abstract",
"description": "Use to write the PNAS abstract — a single self-contained paragraph of ~250 words, quantified and accessible to a broad scientific audience. Distinguishes the abstract (what\/how\/found, for scientists) from the Significance Statement (why-it-matters, for everyone). Late-stage polish."
}
Abstract (pnas-abstract)
When to trigger
- Significance, track, structure, figures, stats, and data are settled (do this late).
- The abstract reads like a methods recap with no result.
- The abstract is being confused with, or duplicated from, the Significance Statement.
- The abstract is over ~250 words, structured with subheadings, or jargon-dense.
The PNAS abstract: ~250 words, single paragraph, self-contained
- Length: up to ~250 words (confirm the exact cap in current PNAS author guidelines).
- One paragraph, no subheadings, no reference citations, no figure/table callouts.
- Self-contained: a reader who sees only the abstract should understand the question, what was done, what was found (quantified), and what it means.
- Accessible to the broad PNAS readership across Biological/Physical/Social Sciences — define or avoid acronyms.
Do not import a Science-style ≤125-word abstract or a one-sentence summary; PNAS abstracts are longer and there is no one-sentence summary. The short, plain artifact PNAS requires is the Significance Statement (
pnas-significance), which is separate.
Abstract vs Significance Statement (keep them distinct)
| Abstract | Significance Statement (pnas-significance) |
|---|---|
| What/how/found, for scientists | Why it matters, for everyone |
| ~250 words, quantified, technical-but-clear | ≤120 words, plain language |
| Stands in for the paper | Stands in for the "so what" |
If the two read the same, the Significance Statement is wrong — fix it in pnas-significance.
Recommended five-move structure (no labels in the text)
- Context / stakes (1–2 sentences) — the broad problem.
- Gap / question (1 sentence) — what was unknown.
- What we did (1–2 sentences) — approach, in plain terms.
- Key results, quantified (2–3 sentences) — the advance, with numbers and uncertainty.
- Conclusion / implication (1 sentence) — what it means for the field.
Hard constraints
- ≤ ~250 words (treat 250 as the ceiling; confirm current cap).
- Single paragraph, no subheadings, no citations, no figure/table references.
- Define any acronym on first use, or avoid it.
- At least one quantified result — magnitude + unit + uncertainty (CI/P), not "significantly increased".
- First sentence comprehensible to a scientist outside the field.
- Distinct in content and register from the Significance Statement.
Jargon blacklist (rewrite on sight)
- "Herein we report…", "Importantly,", "Interestingly,", "Notably,"
- Strings of ≥2 undefined acronyms in one sentence.
- "elucidate", "delineate", "interrogate", "leverage" as filler verbs.
- Hedging stacks: "may potentially suggest that it could…".
Before / after: opening a PNAS abstract for a general reader
The first sentence is read by scientists outside your field. Lead with the stake, not the apparatus.
- Before: "Using single-molecule FRET with ALEX and HMM state assignment, we interrogated the conformational landscape of protein X to elucidate its allosteric coupling."
- After: "How a protein converts a signal at one site into a response at a distant site is a long-standing question across biology. We tracked single molecules of protein X in real time and found that two conformations exchange 40-fold faster when the regulator is bound (rate 12 ± 2 s⁻¹), revealing the coupling step directly."
The revision opens on a cross-division stake, drops the undefined acronym stack, and puts a quantified result with uncertainty where a broad reader can see it.
Referee-facing checklist for the abstract
A PNAS editor scanning the abstract before assigning reviewers checks:
- First sentence is field-general — a reader from another PNAS division grasps why the question matters.
- The headline result is quantified — magnitude, unit, and uncertainty, not "significantly."
- The advance matches the Significance Statement's claim — no broader promise here than the paper delivers.
- Register differs from the Significance Statement — technical-but-clear here; plain-language why-it-matters there.
Output format
【Abstract】 single paragraph (word count: N ≤ 250)
【Five moves present?】 context / gap / approach / quantified result / implication
【Quantified headline result?】 yes/no + the number
【Distinct from Significance Statement?】 yes/no
【Jargon hits removed】 [...]
【Next】 pnas-citation
Anti-patterns
- Do not reuse the ≤120-word Significance Statement as the abstract (or vice versa).
- Do not import a Science ≤125-word abstract or one-sentence summary — wrong genre for PNAS.
- Do not open with method or organism; open with the stake.
- Do not end on "further work is needed" — end on the implication.
- Do not add subheadings; PNAS abstracts are single unstructured paragraphs.
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:10
