Gec writing style
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill gec-writing-styleAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a Global Environmental Change (GEC) manuscript so it reads for an interdisciplinary, policy-relevant audience within the word and abstract caps. GEC values clarity and rigor that travel across disciplines. Polishes the writing; it does not draft the analysis.
SKILL.md
3.5 KB, 725 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Writing Style (gec-writing-style)
A GEC paper must be rigorous and readable across disciplines. Reviewers and readers come from environmental social science, governance, economics, geography, and the natural sciences, and many read for policy relevance. Write so each of them can follow the argument — within the length caps.
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction, abstract, or discussion
- A reviewer said the paper is "hard to follow," "jargon-heavy," or "buries the contribution"
- Cutting to meet the word cap (Research Articles up to 8,000 words; Perspectives up to 3,000 words; abstract <=250 words)
- Writing the abstract and the plain-language framing
What GEC prose does well
- Front-load the contribution. The introduction states the human/policy problem, the gap, the framework, and the contribution within the first page — not after a long literature tour.
- Define terms once, use them consistently. Contested concepts (vulnerability, resilience, governance, transition) get one definition and stick to it.
- Minimize discipline-specific jargon. Explain unavoidable technical terms; an interdisciplinary reader should not need a glossary. Spell out acronyms on first use.
- Connect to scale and stakes. Remind the reader why the result matters across scales and for societies — without overclaiming.
- Discussion that earns the conclusion. Interpret results against the framework, state scope
conditions and limitations honestly, and set up the policy implications (
gec-policy-relevance-and-implications).
The abstract (<=250 words)
- State the problem, approach, key finding, and significance for the human/policy dimension.
- Avoid undefined jargon; an editor from another field decides desk-fate partly on the abstract.
Length discipline
- Research Articles up to 8,000 words (including main body text and table/figure captions, excluding references); cut method minutiae to supplementary material rather than diluting the argument.
- Perspective articles up to 3,000 words (excluding references) must be argument-led; if the paper needs methods/data-analysis description, route it as a Research Article.
- Every section should advance the contribution; if a paragraph does not, cut or move it.
Anti-patterns
- A long literature review before the reader knows the contribution
- Jargon or acronyms unexplained for an interdisciplinary audience
- Inconsistent use of a key concept across sections
- Overclaiming policy impact the evidence does not support
- Going over the word/abstract cap (front-page issue at submission)
Output format
【Contribution stated by】page/paragraph (front-loaded? Y/N)
【Jargon check】terms defined; acronyms spelled out? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (<=250) + states problem/approach/finding/significance?
【Length】within the chosen article-type cap? [Y/N]
【Limitations】stated honestly? [Y/N]
【Next】gec-policy-relevance-and-implications
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— reference managers and typesetting../../resources/official-source-map.md— word/abstract caps and style notes