# Sci Workflow > Use when deciding which sci-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a manuscript from significance test through reviewer rebuttal for Science (AAAS). Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills. - Skill: `thedixitjain/sci-workflow` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/sci-workflow` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/sci-workflow/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/sci-workflow --- # Science Workflow Router (sci-workflow) ## Overview This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill. It tells you **which sci-* skill to use at the current stage** of a manuscript aimed at *Science* (AAAS). Default assumption: unless the user states otherwise, the target is **Science** (the flagship research journal), not *Science Advances*, *Science Translational Medicine*, or other family titles. Family titles share house style but differ on scope and length — flag the difference if the user names one. ## When to trigger - "What should I do next with this draft?" - A draft arrives and you must diagnose the current bottleneck. - The user is switching between experiments, writing, and revision and has lost the thread. - Reviews arrive from Science and you need to switch into rebuttal mode. ## The single most important gate Science rejects **most submissions without external review**. The editorial bar is **broad significance and general interest**, not technical correctness alone. So the first question is never "is the science right?" — it is **"does this clear the desk-reject filter for a general audience?"** Route to `sci-fit` first, always. ## Routing table | Current symptom | Next skill | |-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Not sure the result is broad/general-interest enough | `sci-fit` | | Result is significant but the "why it matters" is buried | `sci-framing` | | No one-sentence summary; abstract reads narrow/jargon-heavy | `sci-abstract` | | Unsure whether this is a Research Article or a Report; over length | `sci-writing` | | Figures over panel/word budget; fonts/colors non-compliant | `sci-figures` | | Stats under-reported; n/error bars/tests unclear; not reproducible | `sci-statistics` | | No data/code/materials availability plan | `sci-data` | | References not in Science numbered style | `sci-citation` | | Need an editor-facing pitch for why Science should review it | `sci-cover-letter` | | About to submit; need a preflight checklist | `sci-submission` | | Received reviews / an R&R decision | `sci-rebuttal` | ## Default order 1. `sci-fit` — clear the broad-significance / general-interest bar first 2. `sci-framing` — lock the conceptual advance and the "why now" 3. `sci-writing` — choose format (Research Article vs Report) and hold length 4. `sci-figures` — finalize display items within budget 5. `sci-statistics` — rigor & reproducibility reporting 6. `sci-data` — data / code / materials availability 7. `sci-abstract` — abstract + one-sentence summary (late polish) 8. `sci-citation` — reference style pass 9. `sci-cover-letter` — significance-forward editor pitch 10. `sci-submission` — preflight 11. `sci-rebuttal` — after review > `sci-abstract` and `sci-citation` are **late-stage polish**. Do not perfect the abstract before the significance and format are settled. ## Decision shortcuts - "A specialist would care, but would a geneticist *and* a physicist?" → `sci-fit` - "My intro starts with background, not with the advance" → `sci-framing` - "My Report main text is 4,000 words" → `sci-writing` (Reports target ~2,500) - "Methods are in the main text" → `sci-writing` (Reports push Methods to Supplementary) - "Bar chart with no individual data points / no n" → `sci-statistics` + `sci-figures` - "No accession numbers / no code repo" → `sci-data` - "Editor needs to see the hook in 3 sentences" → `sci-cover-letter` ## How Science differs from its siblings and from Nature - **Science (Reports / Research Articles)** vs **Science Advances** (open-access, broader acceptance, longer): if the work is solid but not top-1% general interest, Advances may be the realistic target — say so. - **Science vs Nature**: both gate on broad significance, but Science requires a **one-sentence summary** and uses a **single numbered reference list with full author names**; Nature uses a different reference and summary-paragraph convention. Do not copy a Nature-formatted manuscript over without a style pass (`sci-citation`, `sci-abstract`). ## Stage ledger (copy into the conversation and keep it updated) Track the manuscript's position in the pipeline with this ledger so every routing decision is explicit and auditable: ```text SCIENCE (AAAS) MANUSCRIPT STAGE LEDGER ====================================== Target venue : Science | Science Advances | reroute → ______ Format : Report | Research Article | undecided Stage gates (mark ✓ / ✗ / n/a, with date): [ ] sci-fit significance rung ≥3, general-interest test passed [ ] sci-framing one-sentence advance locked; why-now named [ ] sci-writing format chosen; main text within word budget [ ] sci-figures display items ≤ budget; fonts/colors compliant [ ] sci-statistics n, tests, effect sizes, error bars reported [ ] sci-data deposition + accession numbers + availability statement [ ] sci-abstract ≤125-word abstract + one-sentence summary [ ] sci-citation numbered refs, order of appearance, full author lists [ ] sci-cover-letter significance-forward editor pitch drafted [ ] sci-submission preflight checklist clean [ ] sci-rebuttal (post-review only) point-by-point response Current bottleneck : ______ Next skill: sci-______ Open risks : over-claiming? length? missing deposition? ______ ``` Re-emit the ledger after each sub-skill completes; a gate marked ✗ upstream (especially `sci-fit`) invalidates every ✓ downstream of it. ## Anti-patterns - **Do not** skip `sci-fit` and start polishing prose — the modal outcome is desk rejection. - **Do not** let `sci-figures` beautify panels before the format/length decision in `sci-writing`. - **Do not** generate a rebuttal before the main text is actually revised. --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Science-Skills/skills/sci-workflow/SKILL.md`