/oma-academic-writing

name: oma-academic-writing
description: Draft and revise academic prose against a rubric, evidence, and
  citation requirements. Use for essays, reports, literature reviews, or
  academic style audits.

Academic Writing: Publication-Grade English Prose

Scheduling

Goal

Produce, revise, and audit publication-grade academic English prose so that every output simultaneously satisfies the Sentence Structure Protocol, Verb Protocol, Hedging Protocol, and Anti-AI Compliance Checklist, with every claim mapped to verifiable evidence.

Intent signature

• "draft this essay / report / executive summary / conclusion / literature review"
• "rewrite this paragraph in academic English"
• "polish this draft to top-band quality" / "revise to match the rubric"
• "run an anti-AI audit on this prose"
• "check sentence structure variety" / "fix monotonous rhythm"
• "the prose sounds AI-generated, make it pass"
• "verify claims against evidence" / "reverse outline this section"

When to use

• Drafting or revising academic reports, essays, or analysis sections
• Writing executive summaries, conclusions, or literature reviews
• Rewriting AI-sounding prose into natural academic English
• Polishing draft text to achieve top-band rubric quality (HD, A, top-band, etc.)
• Reviewing prose for sentence variety, verb quality, hedging, and anti-AI compliance
• Any task requiring formal academic English output bound by a rubric

When NOT to use

• Translation tasks → use `oma-translation`
• Source discovery, citation gathering, or scholarly literature search → use `oma-scholar`
• Rubric / assignment-spec parsing and task decomposition → use `oma-pm`
• Code documentation, README, or API reference text → use the relevant domain skill (`oma-frontend`, `oma-backend`, `oma-mobile`, `oma-db`, etc.)
• Informal communication, chat, or marketing copy → no skill needed
• Non-English academic writing → call `oma-translation` for the target language after drafting in English

Expected inputs

• `mode`: one of `draft` | `revise` | `review`
• `rubric_or_constraint`: assignment brief, rubric file, or word/structure limits (path or inline text)
• `existing_draft`: prior text to revise or audit (path or inline text); required for `revise` and `review`
• `source_data`: available evidence, figures, citations the writer may use
• `target_register`: defaults to formal academic English with American spelling (en-US)

Expected outputs

• `draft` mode: section heading + drafted prose + Writing Notes (sentence mix, key verbs, anti-AI flags resolved, paragraph lengths) + Claim-Evidence Map
• `revise` mode: original block, revised block, list of specific changes (verb upgrades, structure variation, anti-AI fixes)
• `review` mode: PASS/FAIL Compliance Report across Sentence Structure, Verb Quality, Anti-AI, Specificity, Hedging, Paragraph Clarity, Rhythm/Burstiness, Claim-Evidence Alignment, plus recommended fixes

Dependencies

• `../_shared/core/anti-ai-prose.md` and `resources/anti-ai-checklist.md`: common diagnostics and academic constraints; load together for prose audits
• `resources/sentence-structure-reference.md`: four sentence types, length targets, common errors
• `resources/academic-verb-tiers.md`: meaning- and evidence-based verb guidance
• `resources/hedging-guide.md`: calibrated certainty expressions matched to evidence strength
• `../_shared/core/context-loading.md`: task-relevant resource loading
• `../_shared/core/quality-principles.md`: shared quality bar

Control-flow features

• Mode branching: `draft` vs `revise` vs `review` produce different output formats and pass sequences
• Rubric-quote gate: refuses to apply a rule until the literal constraint text is quoted from the source
• Citation gap branch: when a claim lacks evidence, weaken or remove rather than fabricate; optionally hand off to `oma-scholar`
• Language branch: non-English target hands off to `oma-translation` after the English pass
• Iterative AUDIT: every fix loops back through the anti-AI checklist before emit

Structural Flow

Entry

1. Identify the mode (`draft`, `revise`, `review`) and the rubric source. 2. Quote the exact constraint text (word limits, structural requirements, mandatory sections, rubric rows) before applying any rule. 3. If revising or reviewing, read the existing draft in full first; if drafting, confirm available source data and citations. 4. Index `resources/` and identify any claims that need a more precise verb or hedge. 5. Apply the literal-first principle before any drafting: prefer direct statement over metaphor and flourish. When a literal phrase is available, use it.

Scenes

1. **PREPARE**: load rubric, existing draft, source data; record quoted constraints and note claims whose verbs or hedges need attention. 2. **ACQUIRE**: read `resources/sentence-structure-reference.md`, `academic-verb-tiers.md`, and `hedging-guide.md` only for the patterns relevant to the current section. 3. **ACT**: write or revise prose with sentence variety, accurate verb choice, evidence-matched hedging, clear paragraphing, and direct statements. Keep a common verb when it is the clearest accurate choice. 4. **VERIFY**: apply the shared prose diagnostics and academic checklist; use reverse outlining and the Claim-Evidence Map to identify unsupported claims. In review mode, report findings without rewriting the draft. 5. **FINALIZE**: read-aloud test, cohesion check, specificity audit, word-count verification, paragraph-length variation, rhythm check; emit per the mode's output format.

Transitions

• If a rubric line is ambiguous → quote it back to the user and ask for interpretation; do not infer combined rules.
• If a claim cannot be supported by available evidence → weaken with hedging or remove; if a citation gap is structural, NOTIFY `oma-scholar`.
• If the target language is non-English → finish the English pass, then hand off to `oma-translation`.
• If the same anti-AI flag survives one fix attem