# Cc Writing Style

> Use when polishing prose for a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) manuscript — the Summary/Introduction/Results/Discussion craft, claim calibration, and Cell Press nomenclature/house style. It edits language and framing; it does not design experiments or build figures.

- Skill: `thedixitjain/cc-writing-style` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/cc-writing-style`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/cc-writing-style/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/cc-writing-style

---



# Writing Style & Claim Calibration (cc-writing-style)

## When to trigger

- The Results read like a lab notebook rather than a mechanistic narrative
- The Discussion overstates therapeutic / clinical impact
- Claims outrun the evidence (single-system conclusions stated broadly)
- Nomenclature, tense, or section structure are inconsistent with Cell Press

## Cell Press article structure (narrative roles)

| Section | Role |
|---------|------|
| Summary | One-paragraph mechanistic arc (see `cc-structured-abstract`) |
| Introduction | Concise; the gap and the hypothesis, not a textbook review |
| Results | The mechanistic story, figure by figure, each claim tied to data |
| Discussion | Interpretation, limitations, and **calibrated** translational implications |
| STAR Methods | Structured methods + Key Resources Table (see `cc-reporting-standards`) |

## Results: write the mechanism as a story

- Open each Results subsection with the **question/claim**, then the evidence, then the conclusion.
- Each paragraph maps to a figure/panel; every assertion cites a panel.
- Foreground **causality and orthogonal validation** ("loss of X reduced Y in cells and in PDX tumors") over a list of assays.
- Use past tense for what was done/found; present tense for established facts.

## Claim calibration (the signature Cancer Cell discipline)

Match verb strength to evidence strength:

| Evidence | Acceptable verb |
|----------|-----------------|
| Correlation in human data | "associated with," "correlates with" |
| Perturbation in cells | "promotes," "is required for" (in this system) |
| In vivo perturbation | "drives," "is necessary in vivo" |
| In vivo efficacy + human data | "represents a therapeutic vulnerability" |

- Do not call a target "therapeutic" without in vivo efficacy and/or human evidence.
- Distinguish "necessary" from "sufficient"; do not conflate the two.
- State limitations explicitly (model caveats, single-cohort findings) — reviewers reward candor.
- Avoid "novel," "first," "unprecedented," "proves"; let the data carry the weight.

## Nomenclature & house style

- Use approved gene/protein nomenclature (HGNC for human, MGI for mouse); italicize genes, roman for proteins; correct species capitalization (human BRCA1 vs mouse Brca1).
- Define each abbreviation once; keep terminology consistent across text, figures, and front matter.
- Cite using the Cell Press reference style (verify current format); reference key prior work fairly.
- Active voice and direct sentences; avoid hedging chains ("might possibly suggest").

## Worked micro-edit: a Results paragraph in Cancer Cell voice

**Before (assay catalog, verb outruns evidence):**

> To study MARK7, we performed RNA-seq, which showed many changes. Western blot confirmed
> knockdown. We also did a migration assay and saw differences. These novel results prove MARK7
> is a promising therapeutic target that drives metastasis in patients.

**After (claim → evidence → conclusion, calibrated):**

> MARK7 depletion reprogrammed the CAF secretome (Figure 3A; RNA-seq, n=4 donors), reducing lactate
> exporter transcripts, and this loss was confirmed at protein level with densitometry across three
> independent blots (Figure 3B). Functionally, MARK7 loss **was required for** CAF-driven tumor-cell
> migration in the co-culture system (Figure 3C). Because these data are cell-intrinsic, we tested
> the axis in vivo below before making any therapeutic statement.

The "after" ties each sentence to a panel and an `n`, uses "required for" for a single-system
perturbation, and defers the translational verb until in vivo evidence exists — the Cancer Cell
reflex of never letting the Results outrun the systems tested.

## Discussion craft (where Cancer Cell papers over- or under-claim)

- Open the Discussion by restating the **mechanism with direction**, not by re-summarizing every figure.
- Devote one honest paragraph to **model limitations**: cell-line artifacts, xenograft immune context,
  cohort size and retrospective design, and whether efficacy is genetic (knockout) vs. pharmacologic.
- Separate **what the data show** from **what a clinician would need** — a preclinical vulnerability is
  a hypothesis for a trial, not a treatment recommendation.
- End on a proportionate significance line that a skeptical referee would sign off on.

## Referee reflexes to preempt

Cancer Cell reviewers read prose against the figures. Common language flags they raise:

- "The authors write 'drives tumorigenesis' but show only correlation in the human cohort" — verb/evidence mismatch.
- "The Summary claims a therapy; the paper has no in vivo efficacy" — front-matter overreach.
- "Necessary and sufficient are used interchangeably" — mechanistic imprecision.
- "Every finding is 'novel' and 'striking'" — hype that erodes trust in the real result.
- "Mouse gene written as human (uppercase, non-italic)" — nomenclature sloppiness that signals weak rigor.

Fix these at the language layer before they become review comments.

## Checklist

- [ ] Introduction is concise and ends on a clear hypothesis/gap
- [ ] Each Results paragraph maps to a figure and states claim → evidence → conclusion
- [ ] Causality and orthogonal validation are foregrounded
- [ ] Verbs match evidence level; no therapeutic claim without in vivo/human support
- [ ] "Necessary" vs "sufficient" used correctly
- [ ] Discussion states limitations and calibrated implications
- [ ] Gene/protein nomenclature and species formatting correct and consistent
- [ ] Hype words removed; tense usage consistent

## Anti-patterns

- Results as an assay catalog with no narrative thread
- Overstated translational/therapeutic claims beyond the data
- Conclusions generalized from a single system
- "Novel/first/unprecedented/proves" sprinkled throughout
- Inconsistent gene nomenclature or species capitalization
- A Discussion with no limitations paragraph

## Output format

```
【Results narrative】claim→evidence→conclusion per subsection? Y/N
【Claim calibration】overstated verbs flagged: [...]
【Therapeutic claims】backed by in vivo/human? Y/N
【Limitations】present in Discussion? Y/N
【Nomenclature】gene/protein/species correct & consistent? Y/N
【Hype words】removed? Y/N
【Next step】cc-cover-letter or cc-submission
```

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Cancer-Cell-Skills/skills/cc-writing-style/SKILL.md`