aipoch/lay-summary-for-cross-disciplinary-teams
awesome-med-research-skills/Academic Writing/lay-summary-for-cross-disciplinary-teams/SKILL.md
Rewrites technical research content into a structured lay summary that cross-disciplinary teams can quickly understand and act on. Use when the user wants to explain research to colleagues outside their specialty — clinicians, wet-lab scientists, bioinformaticians, product managers, or leadership. Trigger on: "lay summary", "explain my research to the team", "non-technical summary", "cross-disciplinary summary", "translate my findings", "align our team on the study", or any request to communicate research goals, findings, or next steps to a mixed or non-specialist audience. Part of the AIPOCH Academic Writing skill hub. Sits midstream: after research content is clarified, before downstream deliverables like slide decks or graphical abstracts.
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add aipoch/medical-research-skills lay-summary-for-cross-disciplinary-teamsInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: Apr 28, 2026, 6:03 AM131.4s4 files scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- lay-summary-for-cross-disciplinary-teams
- description:
- >-
- leadership. Trigger on:
- lay summary", "explain my research to the team",
- license:
- MIT
- author:
- AIPOCH
Lay Summary for Cross-Disciplinary Teams
Converts technical research into a structured summary that clinical, wet-lab, bioinformatics, product, and management teams can rapidly read and act on.
Position in the Research Pipeline
This skill sits midstream:
- Upstream (should exist first): Clear research question, defined objectives, structured results, result narrative
- This skill: Translates that clarified content for non-specialist readers
- Downstream (natural next steps): Slide Deck for Lab Meeting, Graphical Abstract Generator, Reviewer Response Drafter
If the user's research content is still vague or unstructured, prompt them to clarify objectives and key findings first. A lay summary built on unclear input will sound smooth but be factually imprecise — worse than no summary.
Step 1 — Gather Input
Ask the user to provide any of:
- Abstract, introduction, or results section
- Key findings in their own words
- A study summary or internal report
Also ask: Who is the primary audience?
mixed(default) — all teams listedclinical— clinicians, medical staffwet-lab— bench scientists, experimentalistsbioinformatics— computational scientists, data analystsproduct— product managers, translational teamsmanagement— leadership, funders, executives
If unspecified, use mixed and include all relevant audience bullets.
Step 2 — Extract Core Structure
Before writing, internally map the input to these five elements:
| Element | What to find | |---|---| | Study goal | Why was this done? What problem does it address? | | System / population | What was studied? (patients, cells, datasets, samples…) | | Main finding | What did the data show? Be specific — avoid vague positives. | | Evidence boundary | What can this support? What remains uncertain or untested? | | Next action | What should each team know or do because of this? |
If any element is missing from the input, note it in the output and invite the user to fill in the gap.
Step 3 — Write the Lay Summary
Use the output template in assets/output-template.md.
Writing principles:
- No unexplained acronyms — define on first use or remove
- Evidence boundary must be explicit: distinguish finding from interpretation
- Each audience bullet should be actionable, not just descriptive
- Quantify findings where possible ("3-fold higher", "in 4 of 6 subtypes")
- The summary must stand alone without access to the original paper
For audience-specific language guidance, read references/audience-guide.md.
Step 4 — Quality Check
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] No naked jargon or undefined acronyms
- [ ] Finding is accurate — not overstated, not undersold
- [ ] Evidence boundary is clearly hedged
- [ ] Each audience bullet is actionable
- [ ] Summary reads cleanly to someone with no domain knowledge
If a check fails, revise before presenting.
References
assets/output-template.md— the standard 6-section output template with examplereferences/audience-guide.md— language and framing guidance per audience type
Related Skills
aipoch/conventional-oncology-hub-gene
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Generates complete conventional oncology bulk-transcriptome biomarker and hub-gene research designs from a user-provided cancer type and study direction. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to design, plan, or build a tumor bioinformatics study centered on differential expression, prognostic filtering or risk modeling, PPI-based hub-gene prioritization, diagnostic/prognostic evaluation, clinical association, immune infiltration context, methylation context, and optional tissue or cell validation. Covers five study patterns (signature-first prognostic workflow, hub-gene-first biomarker workflow, hybrid signature-to-hub workflow, immune-context biomarker workflow, translational validation workflow) and always outputs four workload configs (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+) with recommended primary plan, step-by-step workflow, figure plan, validation strategy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path...
348SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 28, 2026
aipoch/conventional-non-oncology-hub-gene
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Generates complete conventional non-oncology bioinformatics research designs from a user-provided disease context, process-related gene family or biological theme, and validation direction. Use when a study centers on multi-dataset bulk transcriptome integration, DEG analysis, process-gene intersection, enrichment analysis, GSEA, PPI hub-gene prioritization, TF/miRNA regulatory networks, ROC-based biomarker evaluation, and immune infiltration analysis. Covers five study patterns (process-DEG discovery, enrichment/GSEA interpretation, hub-gene prioritization, regulatory-network and immune interpretation, multi-layer public validation) and always outputs Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, figure plan, validation hierarchy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and strictly verified literature retrieval.
348SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 28, 2026
aipoch/confounder-and-bias-control-planner
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Plans confounder control, variable adjustment logic, and bias mitigation strategies at the protocol stage for clinical, epidemiologic, translational, observational, and biomarker studies. Always use this skill when a user needs to identify major confounders, decide which variables should or should not be adjusted for, compare matching/stratification/weighting approaches, anticipate selection or measurement bias, or pressure-test a study design before execution. Focus on bias sensing, causal structure awareness, variable-role classification, and critical design review rather than generic statistical advice.
348SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 28, 2026
aipoch/comparative-network-toxicology-shared-mechanism-reference-grounded
testing
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Generates complete comparative network-toxicology research designs from a user-provided exposure pair, shared toxic phenotype, and validation direction. Use when a study centers on two related exposures under one outcome and needs target collection, shared-vs-specific target decomposition, enrichment, PPI hub prioritization, docking, optional transcriptomic cross-checks, and conservative mechanistic synthesis. Covers five study patterns and always outputs Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, figure plan, validation hierarchy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and strictly verified literature retrieval.
348SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 28, 2026