Use when polishing prose for a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) manuscript — the Summary/Introduction/Results/Discussion craft, claim calibration, and Cell Press nomenclature/house style. It edits language and framing; it does not design experiments or build figures.
Scanned 6/4/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cc-writing-style --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Cc Writing Style?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-cc-writing-style)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: cc-writing-style
description: Use when polishing prose for a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) manuscript — the Summary/Introduction/Results/Discussion craft, claim calibration, and Cell Press nomenclature/house style. It edits language and framing; it does not design experiments or build figures.
---
# Writing Style & Claim Calibration (cc-writing-style)
## When to trigger
- The Results read like a lab notebook rather than a mechanistic narrative
- The Discussion overstates therapeutic / clinical impact
- Claims outrun the evidence (single-system conclusions stated broadly)
- Nomenclature, tense, or section structure are inconsistent with Cell Press
## Cell Press article structure (narrative roles)
| Section | Role |
|---------|------|
| Summary | One-paragraph mechanistic arc (see `cc-structured-abstract`) |
| Introduction | Concise; the gap and the hypothesis, not a textbook review |
| Results | The mechanistic story, figure by figure, each claim tied to data |
| Discussion | Interpretation, limitations, and **calibrated** translational implications |
| STAR Methods | Structured methods + Key Resources Table (see `cc-reporting-standards`) |
## Results: write the mechanism as a story
- Open each Results subsection with the **question/claim**, then the evidence, then the conclusion.
- Each paragraph maps to a figure/panel; every assertion cites a panel.
- Foreground **causality and orthogonal validation** ("loss of X reduced Y in cells and in PDX tumors") over a list of assays.
- Use past tense for what was done/found; present tense for established facts.
## Claim calibration (the signature Cancer Cell discipline)
Match verb strength to evidence strength:
| Evidence | Acceptable verb |
|----------|-----------------|
| Correlation in human data | "associated with," "correlates with" |
| Perturbation in cells | "promotes," "is required for" (in this system) |
| In vivo perturbation | "drives," "is necessary in vivo" |
| In vivo efficacy + human data | "represents a therapeutic vulnerability" |
- Do not call a target "therapeutic" without in vivo efficacy and/or human evidence.
- Distinguish "necessary" from "sufficient"; do not conflate the two.
- State limitations explicitly (model caveats, single-cohort findings) — reviewers reward candor.
- Avoid "novel," "first," "unprecedented," "proves"; let the data carry the weight.
## Nomenclature & house style
- Use approved gene/protein nomenclature (HGNC for human, MGI for mouse); italicize genes, roman for proteins; correct species capitalization (human BRCA1 vs mouse Brca1).
- Define each abbreviation once; keep terminology consistent across text, figures, and front matter.
- Cite using the Cell Press reference style (verify current format); reference key prior work fairly.
- Active voice and direct sentences; avoid hedging chains ("might possibly suggest").
## Checklist
- [ ] Introduction is concise and ends on a clear hypothesis/gap
- [ ] Each Results paragraph maps to a figure and states claim → evidence → conclusion
- [ ] Causality and orthogonal validation are foregrounded
- [ ] Verbs match evidence level; no therapeutic claim without in vivo/human support
- [ ] "Necessary" vs "sufficient" used correctly
- [ ] Discussion states limitations and calibrated implications
- [ ] Gene/protein nomenclature and species formatting correct and consistent
- [ ] Hype words removed; tense usage consistent
## Anti-patterns
- Results as an assay catalog with no narrative thread
- Overstated translational/therapeutic claims beyond the data
- Conclusions generalized from a single system
- "Novel/first/unprecedented/proves" sprinkled throughout
- Inconsistent gene nomenclature or species capitalization
- A Discussion with no limitations paragraph
## Output format
```
【Results narrative】claim→evidence→conclusion per subsection? Y/N
【Claim calibration】overstated verbs flagged: [...]
【Therapeutic claims】backed by in vivo/human? Y/N
【Limitations】present in Discussion? Y/N
【Nomenclature】gene/protein/species correct & consistent? Y/N
【Hype words】removed? Y/N
【Next step】cc-cover-letter or cc-submission
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!