Source profileQuality 83/100

xuzhougeng/wisp-science/skills/journal-club-ppt/SKILL.md

journal-club-ppt

Use it for design and operations tasks; the detail page covers purpose, installation, and practical steps.

Source repository stars
560
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-07-28
Source checked
2026-07-28

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

This skill turns a scientific paper PDF into a claim-driven PPT for lab meeting, journal club, or 文献汇报. The deck must explain the paper's logic, not merely summarize sections or paste screenshots.

Best for

    Not for

    • Clear biological question and direct experimental design.
    • Strong validation across independent datasets, cohorts, perturbations, or orthogonal assays.

    Compatibility matrix

    Platform support, with evidence labels

    PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
    CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Open the compatibility checker

    Installation

    Inspect first. Install second.

    The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

    Source-detected install commandSource
    npx skills add https://github.com/xuzhougeng/wisp-science --skill "skills/journal-club-ppt"
    Safe inspection promptEditorial

    Inspect the Agent Skill "journal-club-ppt" from https://github.com/xuzhougeng/wisp-science/blob/95d2c13d1665d46a388b5bdc998dcce0d5ec2eee/skills/journal-club-ppt/SKILL.md at commit 95d2c13d1665d46a388b5bdc998dcce0d5ec2eee. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

    Workflow

    What the source asks the agent to do

    1. 01

      Wisp-specific workflow

      Use Wisp's strengths rather than treating the PDF as static screenshots:

      Use PDF text extraction / pdf-explore-style helpers when available to read abstract, introduction, results, methods, discussion, captions, author information, and references.Use vision on rendered PDF pages to inspect figures, layouts, panel labels, legends, axes, scale bars, and multi-panel structure.Use Python to render PDF pages at high DPI, crop selected figure panels, name crops consistently, and build a figure ledger.
    2. 02

      Phase 1 — Paper logic reconstruction

      Before touching the PPT, produce a compact internal paperlogic brief:

      Bibliographic identity: title, journal/preprint server, year, DOI if present, article type, field.Central problem: what biological/clinical/computational problem is being addressed?Knowledge gap: what prior uncertainty or technical bottleneck motivates the work?
    3. 03

      Phase 2 — Author and background preparation

      Create one author slide unless the user asks for a longer introduction. Prefer facts from the PDF:

      First author(s): role inferred from author order and contribution statement if present.Corresponding/senior author(s): affiliation, lab/institute, likely research area from the article and author contribution statement.Collaboration structure: single-lab, multi-center, consortium, clinical cohort, computational/experimental partnership.
    4. 04

      Phase 3 — Main-text figure inventory

      Build a figureledger before slide construction. Each row should contain:

      figureid: e.g. Fig1, Fig2, Fig3.panelid: e.g. Fig2b; use wholefigure only when a full figure overview is truly needed.page: PDF page where it appears.
    5. 05

      Phase 4 — Subfigure selection rules

      Select panels by argumentative value. Use the following scoring logic qualitatively:

      It establishes the paper's model/system/workflow.It directly supports the central claim.It is the strongest positive evidence for a key result.

    Permission review

    Static risk signals and limitations

    No configured static risk pattern was detected

    This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

    Evidence record

    Why each signal appears

    EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
    SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
    Quality score83/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
    Repository stars560SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
    Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
    Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

    Pinned source

    Provenance and original SKILL.md

    Repository
    xuzhougeng/wisp-science
    Skill path
    skills/journal-club-ppt/SKILL.md
    Commit
    95d2c13d1665d46a388b5bdc998dcce0d5ec2eee
    License
    AGPL-3.0
    Collected
    2026-07-28
    Default branch
    main
    View the original SKILL.md

    Journal Club PPT — scientific paper → academic group-meeting slides

    This skill turns a scientific paper PDF into a claim-driven PPT for lab meeting, journal club, or 文献汇报. The deck must explain the paper's logic, not merely summarize sections or paste screenshots.

    Default language: Chinese, with key technical terms preserved in English when helpful. Use another language only if the user asks.

    Hard constraints

    1. Read the argument before designing slides. Do not create a slide outline until you can state the paper's central question, knowledge gap, hypothesis, experimental/computational strategy, evidence chain, and final claim.
    2. Include author introduction. At minimum: first author(s), corresponding/senior author(s), affiliations, research direction inferred from the paper, and why this team is relevant to the work. Use external sources only for text facts when available and appropriate; never import external images.
    3. Include background introduction. Explain the field context as: broad problem → unresolved gap → why this paper matters → what question the paper asks.
    4. Confirm a PPT outline before filling slides unless the user asked for a fully automatic final deck. The outline must be evidence-driven and include planned figure panels.
    5. Use only figures from the PDF's main text/body. Do not use web images, stock images, AI-generated images, author photos, journal logos, graphical abstracts, supplementary figures, Extended Data, or figures from other papers unless the user explicitly overrides this constraint.
    6. Select subfigures by logic. Crop and use only panels that support the narrative. Do not paste whole pages or dump every panel from every figure.
    7. End with evaluation. The deck must discuss strengths, limitations, unanswered questions, and possible follow-up experiments/analyses.
    8. Slide count is a hard quality gate. The final PPT must contain at least 10 and at most 30 slides, including title and conclusion/discussion slides. Use 10–12 slides for short papers, 14–18 for standard research articles, 19–24 for complex multi-omics or method-heavy papers, and 25–30 only when the paper genuinely needs it.

    Wisp-specific workflow

    Use Wisp's strengths rather than treating the PDF as static screenshots:

    • Use PDF text extraction / pdf-explore-style helpers when available to read abstract, introduction, results, methods, discussion, captions, author information, and references.
    • Use vision on rendered PDF pages to inspect figures, layouts, panel labels, legends, axes, scale bars, and multi-panel structure.
    • Use Python to render PDF pages at high DPI, crop selected figure panels, name crops consistently, and build a figure ledger.
    • Use Wisp's persistent Python runtime to keep intermediate objects: paper outline, figure inventory, selected crop paths, and slide plan.
    • Use MCP/web/PubMed/ORCID/lab pages only for textual author/background verification when helpful. External visual assets remain forbidden.

    Phase 1 — Paper logic reconstruction

    Before touching the PPT, produce a compact internal paper_logic brief:

    • Bibliographic identity: title, journal/preprint server, year, DOI if present, article type, field.
    • Central problem: what biological/clinical/computational problem is being addressed?
    • Knowledge gap: what prior uncertainty or technical bottleneck motivates the work?
    • Main hypothesis or central claim: one sentence.
    • System and data: organism/cell type/cohort/dataset/model, sample scale, intervention or comparison.
    • Experimental/computational design: key assays, models, algorithms, controls, statistics.
    • Evidence chain: ordered claims from Result 1 → Result 2 → Result N, each mapped to figure panels.
    • Final conclusion: what becomes more believable after the paper?
    • Scope boundary: what the paper does not prove.

    Use the whole paper, especially results opening/closing paragraphs and figure captions. Do not rely only on the abstract.

    Phase 2 — Author and background preparation

    Author slide

    Create one author slide unless the user asks for a longer introduction. Prefer facts from the PDF:

    • First author(s): role inferred from author order and contribution statement if present.
    • Corresponding/senior author(s): affiliation, lab/institute, likely research area from the article and author contribution statement.
    • Collaboration structure: single-lab, multi-center, consortium, clinical cohort, computational/experimental partnership.
    • Why the author team matters for this paper: access to special cohort, platform, model system, algorithm, or prior expertise.

    Avoid unsupported reputation claims such as “国际顶尖专家” unless sourced. If using external textual sources, record source links in speaker notes or a references slide. Do not use author portraits or lab logos unless they are in the PDF body figures and are scientifically relevant, which is rare.

    Background slides

    The background must teach enough context for a lab audience to follow the results:

    1. Define the biological/technical problem.
    2. Explain the state of the field before this paper.
    3. Identify the specific gap or controversy.
    4. State why the paper's approach is plausible or novel.
    5. End with the paper's guiding question.

    Use text, simple native PowerPoint shapes, and figure crops from the paper's main text. Do not bring in external review figures.

    Phase 3 — Main-text figure inventory

    Build a figure_ledger before slide construction. Each row should contain:

    • figure_id: e.g. Fig1, Fig2, Fig3.
    • panel_id: e.g. Fig2b; use whole_figure only when a full figure overview is truly needed.
    • page: PDF page where it appears.
    • caption_summary: concise panel meaning from the caption/results text.
    • paper_claim_supported: which result claim this panel supports.
    • visual_type: schematic, workflow, microscopy, UMAP, volcano plot, survival curve, bar plot, model architecture, validation experiment, etc.
    • include_decision: include / maybe / exclude.
    • reason: why this panel is necessary or redundant.
    • crop_path: final crop file path if included.

    Main-text/body figure rule:

    • Include ordinary main figures labeled Figure 1, Fig. 1, etc. that appear in the article body/results.
    • Exclude Supplementary Figures, Figure S*, Extended Data, appendix figures, cover art, graphical abstracts, and reference figures.
    • If the article places methods or data availability after the results, still treat only article-body research figures as eligible.
    • If a crucial claim depends only on supplementary material, explain that limitation in text rather than importing the supplementary figure.

    Phase 4 — Subfigure selection rules

    Select panels by argumentative value. Use the following scoring logic qualitatively:

    include_score = centrality_to_claim + closes_key_gap + method_explanatory_value + visual_readability - redundancy - excessive_detail

    A selected panel should usually satisfy at least one of these:

    • It establishes the paper's model/system/workflow.
    • It directly supports the central claim.
    • It is the strongest positive evidence for a key result.
    • It is the most important validation/control.
    • It explains a method or dataset that would otherwise be hard to understand.
    • It reveals a limitation, caveat, or surprising negative result needed for fair discussion.

    Avoid these anti-patterns:

    • Using every panel because it exists.
    • Full-page screenshots.
    • Cropping away axes, legends, scale bars, color bars, sample sizes, statistical marks, or panel labels needed to interpret the result.
    • Showing a dense figure without telling the audience exactly what to look at.
    • Reusing the same panel multiple times unless one slide is an overview and another is a justified zoom-in.
    • Recreating the paper's data as new plots unless the user explicitly asks for reanalysis and provides data.

    Phase 5 — Cropping and figure handling

    Use Python to render pages at 200–300 DPI, then crop only the selected panels. Recommended naming:

    figures/
      Fig1a_p03_workflow.png
      Fig2c_p06_validation.png
      Fig4f_p11_mechanism.png
    figure_ledger.csv
    

    Cropping rules:

    • Preserve scientific interpretability: axes, legends, labels, scale bars, color bars, panel letters, and statistical annotations should remain visible.
    • If a panel letter must be removed for layout, add a clear slide label such as Fig. 2c next to the crop.
    • Use minimal overlays only: arrows, boxes, translucent highlights, or callouts that guide attention. Do not alter data, labels, colors, or conclusions.
    • Combine panels from different figures only when the slide explicitly compares them and every crop is labeled with its source figure.
    • Prefer one central crop per result slide; use two to three crops only when the comparison is the point.

    Phase 6 — Deck outline design

    The outline must follow the paper's logic rather than the PDF page order. A standard deck:

    1. Title slide — paper title, journal/year, presenter, group/date.
    2. One-slide takeaway — the central claim and why the paper matters.
    3. Author/team introduction — first/corresponding authors, affiliations, team capability.
    4. Background I — field problem and motivation.
    5. Background II / knowledge gap — what remained unknown before this study.
    6. Study design / methods overview — main system, samples, assays, computational workflow.
    7. Result 1 — first major evidence point, selected panel(s).
    8. Result 2 — second major evidence point, selected panel(s).
    9. Result 3 — mechanism, model, validation, or application, selected panel(s).
    10. Integrated model / conclusion — how the results support the central claim.
    11. Strengths — novelty, design, controls, data scale, method quality, translational or conceptual value.
    12. Limitations and discussion — caveats, missing controls, generalizability, reproducibility, follow-up questions.

    For papers requiring more than 12 slides, expand by splitting complex result chains, not by adding filler. Every added result slide must answer: “What claim does this slide make more believable?”

    Phase 7 — Slide writing rules

    Academic PPT style:

    • Use a clean 16:9 layout with restrained colors, high contrast, and generous whitespace.
    • Each slide title should be a claim, not a topic label. Prefer “单细胞图谱揭示 X 细胞群扩增” over “Figure 2”.
    • Keep body text concise: usually 2–4 bullets or a short explanatory sentence.
    • Put interpretation near the figure, not only in speaker notes.
    • Use speaker notes for: experimental setup, what each panel shows, how to interpret axes, and caveats.
    • Label every crop on slide: Fig. 3b, Fig. 4e–f, etc.
    • Do not overcrowd slides. If the audience cannot read the crop on a projector, split the slide.

    Suggested slide structure for a result slide:

    • Title: one-sentence claim.
    • Left/top: the selected figure crop.
    • Right/bottom: “How to read it” and “What it proves”.
    • Footer or small label: source panel ID.
    • Speaker notes: more detailed explanation and caveat.

    Phase 8 — Strengths, limitations, and discussion

    The final discussion must be specific to the paper. Cover both scientific merit and weaknesses:

    Strength examples:

    • Clear biological question and direct experimental design.
    • Strong validation across independent datasets, cohorts, perturbations, or orthogonal assays.
    • Appropriate controls and statistical tests.
    • Useful resource, method, atlas, or conceptual model.
    • Mechanistic evidence rather than only correlation.

    Limitation examples:

    • Small sample size or biased cohort.
    • Confounding factors, batch effects, or insufficient controls.
    • Correlative results without perturbation.
    • Model organism/cell-line limits.
    • Unclear clinical/generalizable relevance.
    • Missing benchmark, ablation, reproducibility details, code/data availability, or failure cases.

    End with 2–4 discussion questions suitable for group meeting.

    Phase 9 — Deliverables

    When generating the final output, produce:

    • deck_outline.md: slide-by-slide plan with slide title, claim, figure panels, and notes.
    • figure_ledger.csv: all main-text figures/panels considered and inclusion decisions.
    • figures/: cropped panels used in the deck.
    • journal_club_ppt.pptx: final presentation.

    In the final response to the user, report:

    • PPT file path.
    • Slide count.
    • Figure panels used.
    • Any constraints or missing information, especially if author details were limited to the PDF.

    Self-check before final delivery

    Do not deliver until all checks pass:

    • Slide count is 10–30 including title and conclusion/discussion.
    • The first result slide appears only after author/background/method context.
    • Every result slide has a claim title.
    • Every used image is a crop from the PDF's main-text/body figures.
    • No supplementary, Extended Data, web, stock, or AI-generated image is present.
    • The deck uses selected subfigures, not all panels by default.
    • Figure crops are readable and not missing necessary labels/legends/scale bars.
    • The paper's core logic is clear from the slide sequence.
    • Strengths and limitations are specific, not generic.
    • Speaker notes or slide text explain how to read important panels.

    Minimal invocation

    Load `journal-club-ppt`.
    Paper: @paper.pdf
    Make a Chinese academic journal-club PPT for group meeting.
    Target length: 15–20 slides unless the paper complexity suggests otherwise.
    Use only main-text figure panels from the PDF.
    

    Alternatives

    Compare before choosing

    Computed 997

    event4u-app/agent-config

    design-review

    Use when the user says "review the design", "check the UI", or wants a comprehensive UI/UX review. Uses a 7-phase methodology covering interaction, responsiveness, accessibility, and more.

    Computed 9631,966

    K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills

    neuropixels-analysis

    Analyze Neuropixels extracellular recordings end-to-end with SpikeInterface. Covers loading SpikeGLX/Open Ephys/NWB data, preprocessing, drift/motion correction, Kilosort4 (and CPU) spike sorting, quality metrics, and unit curation (threshold-based, model-based UnitRefine, and AI-assisted visual review). Use when working with Neuropixels 1.0/2.0 recordings, spike sorting, or extracellular electrophysiology analysis.

    Computed 9531,966

    K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills

    scientific-brainstorming

    Facilitates evidence-aware scientific ideation with independent generation, structured discussion, explicit assumptions, transparent evaluation, adversarial review, and decision logs. Use for early-stage research brainstorming or prioritizing candidate directions; hand off empirical validation, study design, ethics or regulatory review, and clinical questions to appropriate experts or skills.

    Computed 9431,966

    K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills

    citation-management

    Comprehensive citation management for academic research. Search Google Scholar and PubMed for papers, extract accurate metadata, validate citations, and generate properly formatted BibTeX entries. This skill should be used when you need to find papers, verify citation information, convert DOIs to BibTeX, or ensure reference accuracy in scientific writing.