Teng-bio Bioinformatics Manuscript Writing
Use this as the writing router and manuscript-argument builder for bioinformatics papers. It consumes evidence; it does not create evidence.
Boundary
This skill does:
- draft or restructure title, abstract, introduction, Results, Discussion, conclusion, significance, outline, and section plans
- convert Chinese author notes into manuscript-ready English while preserving the underlying evidence boundary
- build a claim-evidence-boundary map from
EVIDENCE_PACK.md, figure/table inventories, analysis summaries, and author notes - route specialized work to the narrower bio writing skills when that is safer
This skill does not:
- run RNA-seq, enrichment, database, accession, sequence, protein, phylogenetic, or reproduction work
- verify database records or literature facts on its own
- fabricate sample sizes, p values, FDR values, accessions, versions, genome builds, mechanisms, figure panels, or citations
- hide weak evidence behind polished prose
If evidence is missing or ambiguous, mark it explicitly and recommend bioinfo-evidence-orchestrator before drafting stronger claims.
When to open extra files
| File | Open when |
|---|---|
| references/evidence-pack-input.md | Before drafting from an EVIDENCE_PACK.md or mixed evidence bundle |
| references/article-types.md | Choosing the manuscript architecture for omics, resource, method, biomarker, or mechanism papers |
| references/section-workflows.md | Drafting a specific section such as abstract, introduction, Results, Discussion, title, or conclusion |
Intake
Identify, without over-asking when the context is sufficient:
- requested section or product
- paper type and target journal style, if provided
- study question, organism/system, assay type, dataset inventory, and analysis workflow
- main findings and their evidence strength
- figure/table inventory and intended message of each item
- limitations, validation status, and claims that require softer wording
Minimum safe input for polished prose is at least one supported claim plus its evidence and boundary. If absent, produce a scaffold with placeholders rather than filling the gap.
Routing
| User asks for | Prefer |
|---|---|
| Full manuscript logic, abstract, introduction, Discussion, title, outline | this skill |
| Figure-by-figure Results prose | bio-results-writing |
| Reproducible Methods from workflow provenance | bio-methods-writing |
| Editing, polishing, translation, claim calibration | bio-polishing |
| Reviewer response or revision letter | bio-reviewer-response |
| Data/code availability wording | bio-data-code-availability |
| Chinese group-meeting PPT from a bio paper | bio-paper2ppt |
| Missing analysis, database validation, or evidence pack creation | bioinfo-evidence-orchestrator |
Workflow
- Audit the evidence package. Separate confirmed facts, inferred interpretation, missing information, and unsupported claims.
- Build the argument before drafting. Use:
In [biological system], we address [gap] by [approach], showing [finding], supported by [evidence], within [boundary]. - Choose architecture by article type. Use
references/article-types.mdwhen the paper type is not obvious. - Draft from evidence outward. Keep each major claim close to the figure/table, dataset, statistic, or literature support that justifies it.
- Calibrate language. Use strong verbs only for direct evidence; use
suggest,indicate,are consistent with, ormayfor exploratory or indirect evidence. - Check reproducibility signals. Dataset accessions/paths, software, versions, design formula, covariates, thresholds, and validation should match the supplied evidence.
- Return prose plus audit notes. Do not bury missing inputs.
Output format
Default output:
Draft:requested manuscript prose.Section outline:3-7 bullets when a section or full paper structure is involved.Claim-evidence-boundary map:major claims with evidence and status.Missing information / risk flags:only material issues.中文核对:concise explanation for Chinese author notes or when useful.