nature-data

Inventory every dataset supporting your figures and conclusions, classify each into an access route (public repository, controlled access, supplementary, reused public, third-party, or justified request), then draft the statement with explicit dataset-to-location mapping. The skill returns ready-to-paste English text plus unresolved fields.

State why open sharing is impossible (privacy, consent, legal, or commercial reasons), name the access committee or institutional route, define eligibility and conditions such as data-use agreements, and note any public metadata. A vague "available upon request" phrase is flagged as insufficient.

Use a mandated community repository when your data type requires one (e.g., GEO/SRA for sequencing, PDB for structures, PRIDE for proteomics). Otherwise prefer a discipline-specific repository, falling back to generalist options like Zenodo, Dryad, Figshare, or an institutional repository with DOI support.

Yes. NMI requires a Data Availability statement followed by a separate Code availability section placed before the references. Newly developed central code must also satisfy reviewer-access requirements and the Software Submission Checklist.

Only with justification. Nature-style policy treats this as weak unless you specify the restriction reason, the responsible institutional body, eligible requesters, review conditions, and any public metadata. The skill converts such phrasing into a compliant controlled-access statement.

It never invents DOIs, accession numbers, licences, embargo dates, or ethics approvals; missing information produces a draft plus a confirmation checklist instead. It also stays scoped to availability and metadata, not statistical analysis or manuscript polishing.