/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 abstract / 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 research abstracts, 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`
• Optional `rubric_or_constraint`: assignment brief, rubric file, or word/structure limits (path or inline text); draft-only revision/review does not require a rubric
• `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

• `references/_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, contextual rhythm guidance, common errors
• `resources/academic-verb-tiers.md`: meaning- and evidence-based verb guidance
• `resources/hedging-guide.md`: calibrated certainty expressions matched to evidence strength
• `references/_shared/core/context-loading.md`: task-relevant resource loading
• `references/_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 constraints: quote supplied assignment requirements before applying them; draft-only revision/review can proceed without inventing a rubric
• 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. If assignment constraints were supplied, quote their exact text before applying them. Without a rubric, revise/review the draft using the requested register and evidence; do not invent assignment rules. 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 ev