Paper cover letter
Draft, revise, or diagnose an academic journal cover letter (submission letter to the editor) once the manuscript is essentially complete. Use for the submission statement, a non-overclaiming contribution summary, scope-fit argument for the target journal, originality and ethics declarations, suggested or opposed reviewers, and corresponding-author details. Reuse the manuscript's established problem and contributions instead of inventing them; defer final language polishing to paper-polisher.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add yujie-jason-zhang/polish_skill --skill paper-cover-letterAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 15 stars15 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
5.5 KB, ~1.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Paper Cover Letter
Scope
Use this skill when the manuscript is essentially complete and the user needs the letter that accompanies a journal submission: a new submission, a resubmission, or the cover note for a revised manuscript.
Read references/cover_letter_guide.md for move-by-move templates, length registers, placeholder rules, and the declaration block before drafting a full letter. For a one-line tweak, the core rules below are enough.
Use another skill when the task is primarily:
- a point-by-point response to reviewer comments or a rebuttal: use
paper-response-to-reviewers(if available); that is a separate task, not a cover letter; - manuscript storyline, contribution framing, or section structure: use
paper-argument-reconstructor(if available) to settle the contributions first; - TeX-safe or final-language polishing of the letter text: use
paper-polisher(if available) for the closing pass; - novelty-risk auditing of the underlying idea: use
idea-novelty-auditor(if available).
A cover letter reuses contributions that the manuscript already supports. It does not establish new ones.
Verification Mode
This skill has two modes. By default it drafts the letter as described above. When the input is a cover letter another tool or skill has already drafted, switch to verification mode instead of regenerating:
- do not overwrite the other tool's wording;
- check it against this skill's rules: no overclaiming, novelty kept hedged, ethics statements treated as facts to confirm rather than assumed, and placeholders for every unconfirmed specific;
- report only the deviations; fix one in place only if it breaks a hard rule.
The suite's value is faithful, bounded output, not a competing rewrite. Verify rather than replace what a stronger generator already produced.
Non-Negotiable Rules
- Do not invent contributions, results, novelty, or journal-scope claims that the manuscript or the user does not support.
- Treat every originality and ethics statement as a factual claim: no prior publication, no concurrent submission, all-author approval, conflict-of-interest status, funding, and data availability. Do not assert these on the user's behalf. Insert them only when the user confirms them; otherwise leave an explicit
[...]placeholder and flag it. - Do not overclaim. Keep novelty hedged (for example, "to the best of our knowledge") and tie any superiority to the evaluated conditions, mirroring the manuscript's own claim boundaries.
- Leave every unconfirmed specific as a
[...]placeholder: editor name, journal name, manuscript ID, article type, author names, emails, and dates. Do not fabricate them. - Preserve the manuscript's terminology and claim strength. The letter must not promise more than the paper delivers.
Rule-Conflict Escalation
If the user asks the letter to assert an ethics fact, a novelty claim, or a scope-fit statement that the source does not support, stop and ask before writing it. If your own draft drifts into overclaiming, revise it back into bounded language without asking.
Workflow
- Confirm the target journal, manuscript title, article type, and submission stage (new, resubmission, or revision).
- Pull the core problem and contributions from the manuscript or from
paper-argument-reconstructoroutput. Do not re-derive or inflate them. - Choose a length register: concise (a few sentences) or detailed (mechanism, effect, and readership). Default to concise. Use detailed only when the user explicitly requests it or a confirmed journal requirement or norm calls for a fuller letter.
- Assemble the moves in order, inserting a placeholder for every unconfirmed fact.
- Run the pre-send check: no overclaim, ethics statements confirmed or placeheld, scope-fit naming the actual journal, no fabricated specifics.
- If the user wants a final language pass, hand the assembled letter to
paper-polisher.
Cover Letter Moves
Summary only; see references/cover_letter_guide.md for templates.
- Salutation and submission statement: title, article type, target journal.
- Core contribution: problem, approach, and main result, hedged.
- Scope fit with the target journal and its readership.
- Originality and ethics declarations: confirmed or placeheld.
- Optional: suggested or opposed reviewers, related or concurrent submissions, prior editorial contact.
- Corresponding-author correspondence details.
- Closing.
Moves 3 and 4 may swap order. Keep whichever order the target journal expects.
Output Modes
For a new draft, return:
- The letter, with an explicit
[...]placeholder for every unconfirmed fact. - A short list of the placeholders the user must fill, marking which are ethics facts that only the authors can confirm.
For diagnosis of an existing letter, return:
- Overclaims and unsupported novelty or scope assertions.
- Missing or unconfirmed ethics declarations.
- Structural gaps against the standard moves.
- A revised version that keeps claims bounded.
For a letter that must be returned paste-ready, run a final paper-polisher pass if available.
What ships with it: 1 file
6.8 KB alongside SKILL.md
references/
- cover_letter_guide.md6.8 KB
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most hr recruiting skills give in ~1.1k tokens
Counted across 356 of the 357 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- Quantify achievements with specific metricsin 14 of 356, across 6 files
- Keep the resume under two pagesin 14 of 356, across 6 files
- Request the full job description if not providedin 12 of 356, across 4 files
- Extract keywords and prioritize job requirementsin 12 of 356, across 4 files
- Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs are missingin 12 of 356, across 5 files
- Map candidate experience to job requirementsin 11 of 356, across 3 files
- Ask if the user wants adjustmentsin 11 of 356, across 3 files
- Provide strengths and gap analysis after the resumein 10 of 356, across 2 files
- Request candidate background details if not providedin 10 of 356, across 2 files
- Format experience bullets as action verb plus resultin 10 of 356, across 2 files
- Ask for missing inputs before startingin 10 of 356, across 9 files
- Use exact job description terminologyin 9 of 356, across 1 file
Said here and by no other author read
- confirm target journal, manuscript title, article type, and submission stage
- pull core problem and contributions from the manuscript
- default to concise length
- insert placeholder for every unconfirmed fact
- leave unconfirmed ethics declarations as placeholders
- keep novelty hedged and tied to evaluated conditions
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.