gcb-writing-style — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited gcb-writing-style (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
A GCB paper must read for a broad global-change audience — ecologists, biogeochemists, and Earth-system scientists who are not specialists in your system. Lead with the mechanism and the global-change significance, quantify everything, and stay within the length and abstract limits. Verify exact caps on the live guidelines page before submission.
first paragraphs — not buried in the discussion.
global change, beyond a single site/species.
"increased significantly" without magnitude.
approach, key quantitative result, and conclusion; 6–10 keywords.
only as far as the evidence reaches.
subfield.
Cut method minutiae to supporting information.
GCB prose fails most often at the sentence, not the structure. This table pairs the broad-readership weakness with the rewrite a general ecologist/biogeochemist can parse.
| Weak sentence | Why it fails at GCB | Rewrite |
|---|---|---|
| "Warming significantly increased flux." | No magnitude, no mechanism | "Warming raised CO2 efflux by 28% (95% CI 19–37%) via faster microbial turnover." |
| "Results have broad implications." | Significance asserted, not shown | "The feedback weakens the land carbon sink across temperate grasslands." |
| "We used GLMMs on the NPP data." | Undefined acronym for a non-specialist | "We fitted mixed models to net primary productivity (NPP)." |
| "This is the first record for our site." | Local novelty, not advance | "This resolves why prior syntheses disagreed on the response." |
An abstract opens: "Climate change is a major threat to ecosystems. We sampled a grassland and analysed the data." It states no driver magnitude, no mechanism, no result — a general GCB reader learns nothing. Rewritten to GCB style: "Experimental warming of +2.4 C accelerated soil CO2 efflux by 28% (95% CI 19–37%; illustrative), driven by faster microbial substrate turnover, weakening the soil-carbon sink across temperate grasslands." Aim, approach, quantified result, mechanism, and global-change significance now sit in the first lines, inside the abstract cap. Numbers illustrative.
paragraph.
outside your subfield.
【Mechanism stated early】driver → response in abstract + intro? [Y/N]
【Significance early】global-change relevance up front? [Y/N]
【Quantified】effect sizes + intervals + units in abstract/results? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (300-word limit) + 6–10 keywords
【Length】within article-type ceiling? [Y/N]
【Accessible】jargon/acronyms defined for general reader? [Y/N]
【Next】gcb-cover-letter../../resources/external_tools.md — reference managers and writing tooling../../resources/official-source-map.md — word/abstract caps and article types~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.