How do I install the Eacl Writing Style skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add brycewang-stanford/eacl-writing-style in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Eacl Writing Style safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: PASS, Skill Scanner: PASS. Capability flags: docs only. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Eacl Writing Style?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Eacl Writing Style free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Eacl Writing Style?

brycewang-stanford (@brycewang-stanford) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Eacl Writing Style by brycewang-stanford

Name: Eacl Writing Style
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: brycewang-stanford

Eacl Writing Style

Use when revising an EACL paper's prose for a task-first first page, a concrete page-one example, scoped LLM-era claims, quantified error analysis, an anonymity-safe voice, honest Limitations, and compression into the 8-page long or 4-page short content budget without pushing the argument into appendices.

brycewang-stanford Updated Sep 8, 2026 1k repo stars

File contents

EACL Writing Style

Use this to revise an EACL paper so its contribution is legible fast and its claims are scoped. EACL reviewers read many papers in a short window; the ones that land put the task and the result on the first page, quantify rather than assert, and name their limits. Pair this with the worked example in ../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md.

The EACL first-page arc

Task — the specific problem, in the first breath, not "great progress in NLP."
Gap — why current methods fall short, each reason nameable.
What we do — the contribution, stated plainly.
Measured result — a number tied to a table, with variance.
Honest scope — what the result does and does not cover.

Habits to cut, habits to keep

Cut	Keep
"Achieves strong performance"	"Improves F1 by X (95% CI ...) over baseline B"
Generic "prior work is limited"	A specific failure per cited approach
A concrete example only on page 5	A worked example on page 1
Unscoped "our method generalizes"	"On the six languages tested; see Limitations"
Roadmap standing in for an argument	A one-line roadmap after the argument

Scope the LLM-era claim

If the paper uses or evaluates LLMs, bound the claim to the models, prompts, and settings tested, and disclose contamination risk. An unscoped "LLMs can/cannot do X" invites the reviewer to name the counterexample.
Report prompts and decoding as part of the method, not as trivia (see eacl-reproducibility).

Quantify the error analysis

A page-one or early-section error analysis with counts ("40% of errors are agreement errors; examples in Table 3") is worth more than adjectives. EACL rewards papers that show where and why a system fails, especially across languages.

Anonymity-safe voice

Anonymity check before submission:
  - no author names, affiliations, or acknowledgements
  - no "as we showed in our EMNLP 2025 paper" -> use third-person citation
  - no links that identify authors (personal repos, named grant pages)
  - self-citations phrased neutrally

Multilingual clarity

Name languages and scripts explicitly; render diacritics correctly in the PDF and later in the Anthology metadata (eacl-camera-ready).
Do not let an aggregate multilingual score stand in for per-language honesty — a table beats an average.

Compression discipline

The content pages carry the argument; appendices carry detail. If cutting for length pushes a core claim into an appendix, cut something else instead (see eacl-supplementary).
The Limitations section is free space and read — use it to state scope, not to hide results.

Output format

[First-page arc] Present / Missing elements: <task/gap/what/result/scope>
[Overclaims] <phrases to scope, with fix>
[Evidence pairing] <claims lacking a table/number>
[Anonymity] <any leak>
[Multilingual honesty] <aggregate-hiding issues>
[Compression] <what to cut so the body carries the claim>

---name: eacl-writing-styledescription: Use when revising an EACL paper's prose for a task-first first page, a concrete page-one example, scoped LLM-era claims, quantified error analysis, an anonymity-safe voice, honest Limitations, and compression into the 8-page long or 4-page short content budget without pushing the argument into appendices.---# EACL Writing StyleUse this to revise an EACL paper so its contribution is legible fast and its claims are scoped.EACL reviewers read many papers in a short window; the ones that land put the **task and theresult on the first page**, quantify rather than assert, and name their limits. Pair this withthe worked example in `../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md`.## The EACL first-page arc1. **Task** — the specific problem, in the first breath, not "great progress in NLP."2. **Gap** — why current methods fall short, each reason nameable.3. **What we do** — the contribution, stated plainly.4. **Measured result** — a number tied to a table, with variance.5. **Honest scope** — what the result does and does not cover.## Habits to cut, habits to keep| Cut | Keep ||---|---|| "Achieves strong performance" | "Improves F1 by X (95% CI ...) over baseline B" || Generic "prior work is limited" | A specific failure per cited approach || A concrete example only on page 5 | A worked example on page 1 || Unscoped "our method generalizes" | "On the six languages tested; see Limitations" || Roadmap standing in for an argument | A one-line roadmap after the argument |## Scope the LLM-era claim- If the paper uses or evaluates LLMs, **bound the claim to the models, prompts, and settings tested**, and disclose contamination risk. An unscoped "LLMs can/cannot do X" invites the reviewer to name the counterexample.- Report prompts and decoding as part of the method, not as trivia (see `eacl-reproducibility`).## Quantify the error analysis- A page-one or early-section **error analysis with counts** ("40% of errors are agreement errors; examples in Table 3") is worth more than adjectives. EACL rewards papers that show *where* and *why* a system fails, especially across languages.## Anonymity-safe voice```textAnonymity check before submission: - no author names, affiliations, or acknowledgements - no "as we showed in our EMNLP 2025 paper" -> use third-person citation - no links that identify authors (personal repos, named grant pages) - self-citations phrased neutrally```## Multilingual clarity- Name languages and scripts explicitly; render diacritics correctly in the PDF and later in the Anthology metadata (`eacl-camera-ready`).- Do not let an aggregate multilingual score stand in for per-language honesty — a table beats an average.## Compression discipline- The **content pages carry the argument**; appendices carry detail. If cutting for length pushes a core claim into an appendix, cut something else instead (see `eacl-supplementary`).- The **Limitations** section is free space and read — use it to state scope, not to hide results.## Output format```text[First-page arc] Present / Missing elements: <task/gap/what/result/scope>[Overclaims] <phrases to scope, with fix>[Evidence pairing] <claims lacking a table/number>[Anonymity] <any leak>[Multilingual honesty] <aggregate-hiding issues>[Compression] <what to cut so the body carries the claim>```

Frequently asked questions