Skip to main content Link Menu Expand (external link) Document Search Copy Copied

Style guide

Biology Skills is written for AI agents and expert human reviewers. It is not a textbook.

Length

Targets:

  • SKILL.md: 200 to 600 words
  • hard maximum for SKILL.md: 900 words
  • Core rules: 60 to 200 words
  • normal reference topic: 300 to 1,200 words
  • split a topic before about 2,000 words unless the material is inseparable

Brevity is a correctness feature. Operational rules should be easy for an agent to find and apply.

Required topic sections

Every reference topic contains:

  1. Summary
  2. Core rules
  3. Required context
  4. AI behaviour
  5. Common failure modes
  6. Authoritative standards
  7. Examples
  8. Sources

These headings also define generated short, standard, and complete views.

Writing rules

  • State rules directly.
  • Prefer one biological claim per bullet.
  • Distinguish requirements from recommendations.
  • Do not hide important conditions in examples.
  • Avoid universal claims unless they are genuinely universal.
  • Name the biological object precisely: gene, transcript, protein isoform, allele, genotype, sample, cell type, assay, population, or other relevant unit.
  • Preserve distinctions between observation, measurement, prediction, association, interpretation, mechanism, and causality.
  • Explain why a standard matters locally, but cite its authority for exact normative syntax.
  • Use concrete failure cases when they improve agent behaviour.
  • Remove background detail that does not change what the agent should know or do.

Skill versus reference

SKILL.md should answer:

  • when the domain matters
  • which checks the agent must perform
  • which reference files to consult
  • which assumptions must not be made silently

A reference topic should answer:

  • what the biological distinction is
  • why it matters
  • what information must be preserved
  • how an AI system should behave
  • which authoritative source governs formal details

Review language

Do not call content expert-reviewed, verified, consensus, authoritative, or definitive unless its review status and sources support that claim.