paper-writing

name paper-writing description Research paper writing assistant that enforces Arpit Gupta's editorial principles, voice profile, and writing workflow. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: Use this skill whenever the user mentions writing a paper, drafting a section, revising a section, editing a paper, reviewing a draft, rewriting an introduction, writing an evaluation, polishing prose, compressing text, or any task involving .tex files, Overleaf, conference submissions, or paper deadlines. Also trigger when the user mentions any paper by name (NetBurst, NetForge, BQT+, TurboTest, etc.) in a writing context. This skill should activate for ANY research writing task — sections, abstracts, rebuttals, camera-ready edits, cover letters, or response to reviewers. Paper Writing Skill How This Skill Works This skill encodes the writing methodology of the Systems and Networking Lab (SNL) at UC Santa Barbara, derived from forensic analysis of 6 papers (8 submissions), 7,600+ Overleaf edits, 100+ tex file versions, and 5 peer review processes. See The Paper Behind the Paper for the full analysis. It works out of the box — the default rules are calibrated and battle-tested. Three Layers The pipeline (fixed) : A five-stage writing workflow. Does not change between users or papers. The voice and editorial rules (defaults provided, customizable) : Sentence-level style, structural rules, compression patterns, section checklists. These ship with the SNL lab's rules as defaults. Students may customize by editing files in author_profile/ — see the README for what to change. The project context (per paper) : Identity sentence, venue, contribution claims, locked decisions. Lives in a project_context.md in the paper's working directory. How This Skill Connects to the Research Pipeline This skill does not operate in isolation. It is part of a three-skill family, and the artifacts from the other two skills are direct inputs to the writing process: From the literature-survey-skill : Gap analysis → feeds Brainstorming Phase 1 (Problem Discovery). The gaps the survey identified — missing quadrants, shared assumptions that break, unexplored combinations — are the structural limitations that motivate your paper. Writing craft extractions (Pass 3+) → feed the Architecture stage and section drafting. The introduction anatomy, evaluation architecture, and design craft you extracted from the best papers in your area are the models for your own paper's structure. Competitive positioning → feeds Brainstorming Phase 4. The invariant matrix and dependency graph from synthesis show exactly where your paper sits relative to existing work. From the data-visualization-skill : Exploration ( exploration_log.md ) → feeds Brainstorming Phase 3 (Evaluation Design). The exploration forced you to look at your data from multiple angles before forming hypotheses. The surprises you found — distributions you didn't expect, subgroups that behaved differently — shape what claims are defensible and where the real contribution lives. Brainstorm ( braindump.md ) → feeds the figure/table plan. Each braindump articulates what question a figure answers, what you expected to see, and what would surprise you. These are the hypotheses your evaluation must validate. Plan + Execute ( plot_context.md ) → feeds the Architecture stage's figure/table plan. Each plot_context records intent, variable mappings, plot type rationale, and design decisions — ready-made entries for the paper's figure plan. Analyze (WALTER narrations) → feeds Evaluation Move 4 (Takeaway Synthesis). The WALTER Result — "what is the takeaway? does it connect back to the hypothesis?" — is a first draft of the Takeaway paragraph for that experiment cluster. The three skills create a closed loop: the literature survey reveals the gap and teaches you how accepted papers communicate; data visualization forces you to understand what your evidence actually shows and what hypotheses it validates; paper writing turns both into a publishable argument. If the student has artifacts from the other skills, Claude MUST load them. When This Skill Triggers, Claude MUST: Read this SKILL.md (already loaded) Read ALL files in author_profile/ — these are the source of truth for editorial rules Ask which paper the user is working on Look for a project_context.md in the paper's working directory If found, read it and treat it as binding constraints If not found, run the Structured Brainstorming workflow below to create one Check for artifacts from sibling skills — survey paper notes with craft extractions, exploration_log.md , braindump.md , plot_context.md , WALTER narrations. If found, load them as reference material for the relevant pipeline stages Structured Brainstorming — The Skill's Centerpiece The biggest obstacle for students isn't writing — it's that their ideas live as unstructured intuitions. They know something is interesting but can't articulate what or why. The brainstorming process transforms scattered thinking into a precise project context that drives every section of the paper. How It Works Claude MUST read brainstorming_guide.md and walk the student through its 6 phases interactively. The phases are: Phase Focus Key outcome 1. Problem Discovery Who suffers, what breaks, why it breaks structurally The opening paragraph's stakes and the Problem Gap 2. Contribution Crystallization Core claim, headline number, key abstraction name The identity sentence and contribution list 3. Evaluation Design Baselines, metrics, datasets, experiment-to-claim mapping The evaluation plan that constrains what the introduction can promise 4. Positioning and Framing Venue fit, competitive positioning, category creation vs. competition The Related Work positioning sentence 5. Architecture and Constraints Design pipeline, locked decisions, open questions The Design section's structure and the project's scope 6. Narrative Spine Story arc, the "inevitable" moment, the tweet-length pitch The thread connecting every section Rules for Running Brainstorming Go phase by phase. Don't skip ahead. Phase 1 (the problem) must be clear before Phase 2 (the contribution) makes sense. "I don't know" is a valid answer. Flag it as an open question and move on. Gaps discovered now are cheap to fix; gaps discovered during review are expensive. Push back on vague answers. "It's faster" → "Faster for whom? By how much? On what workload?" Every answer should be specific enough to appear in the paper. Distinguish structural from quantitative. "Existing tools aren't accurate enough" is quantitative — it motivates more experiments. "Existing tools assume stationarity, which fails on bursty data" is structural — it motivates a new approach. Papers need structural gaps. After all phases, generate project_context.md using the template in examples/project_context.md . See examples/netburst_project_context.md for a real example of what a complete project context looks like. Voice and Editorial Rules Claude MUST read these files from this skill's directory. They contain the detailed rules with examples. File What it controls author_profile/editorial_principles.md 14 cross-paper principles with evidence (introduction-twice, named-over-vague, what→why→so-what headings, compress-after-expanding, etc.) author_profile/craft_reference.md How to write (the positive layer). Sentence-level style (~21-word mean, claim-first, active voice, named-over-vague, no filler), composition craft, and three registers: base/terse, conceptual/position, warm/narrative. Read while drafting a paragraph. author_profile/gate_mechanical.md The single mechanical grep gate (M1–M18). Em-dashes, antithesis, intensifiers, banned + pompous + fancy verbs, throat-clearing, passive voice, wordiness, qualifiers, term-drift — one grep script. Run on every tex edit; the passive-voice scan also runs in the base gate. author_profile/gate_semantic.md The single reader-judgment gate (S1–S31). Define-before-use, followability, parse-accessibility, thesis-tie, lexical + decomposition consistency, non-duplication, rigor/grounding, honest positioning, figures, and the closure gate . Runs in the red-team/loop pass. author_profile/compression_patterns.md 7 compression operations with before/after examples and quantitative benchmarks author_profile/rhetorical_moves.md Cross-section move sequences for introduction (6 moves), design (5 moves), evaluation (6 moves), related work (3 moves) author_profile/intervention_types.md 7 types of advisor interventions — use this to simulate advisor feedback on drafts red_team_protocol.md Independent adversarial red-team (evidence-gated): after the mechanical audit, a reviewer that did NOT write the text re-runs gate_mechanical.md and applies gate_semantic.md , and must return CLEAN before text ships. loop_mode.md Resumable /loop audit-and-fix protocol: a disk-backed ledger, one section per iteration, self-terminating when clean. Quick Reference: Non-Negotiable Voice Rules These are extracted from the detailed files above. In case of conflict, the files are the source of truth. Mean sentence length: ~21 words. Maximum: ~40 words (contribution lists only). Topic sentences assert claims. Never open a paragraph with background or context. Zero hedging. "We show" not "We believe." "X reduces Y by 13×" not "X may help reduce Y." Active voice everywhere — no exceptions. Passive voice obscures agency and weakens prose. No filler adjectives: never use "novel," "significant," "state-of-the-art," "comprehensive," "robust," "substantial," "promising," "impressive." Replace with specific numbers or delete. Signpost through claims: section openers may state the section's conclusion ("This section shows that X reduces Y by 13×") but never use content-free placeholders ("In this section, we describe..."). The test: does the opener tell a skim-reader what the section concludes ? No exclamation marks. No rhetorical questions outside introductions. Paragraphs: 4–6 sentences. Every paragraph does exactly one of: make a claim, present evidence, synthesize a takeaway. Headings are claims, not topics. "Event-centric decomposition reduces error 13×" not "Experimental Results." Named over vague: every mechanism, baseline, metric must have a proper name. If a term could apply to any paper in the field, it doesn't belong in this paper. Interpret figures, don't just cite. "Figure 3 shows that X, confirming Y" not "See Figure 3." Every evaluation subsection ends with a Takeaway paragraph. Every design choice justified immediately. Not "we use X" but "we use X because Y." Venue Adaptation Systems venues (NSDI, SIGCOMM, CoNEXT, IMC) : Use \smartparagraph{} labels. Systems evaluation (latency, throughput, memory). Frame contributions as operational impact. Post-evaluation related work. ML venues (NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML) : No \smartparagraph. Colon-style subtitles. Reproducibility checklist. Frame as methodological advances. Integrated related work. Workshop/short papers (HotNets, ANRW) : Compress everything 50%. Lead with the intellectual provocation. Mandatory Style Audit (GATE — applies to ALL tex edits) Before presenting or committing ANY new or modified tex content, Claude MUST run a sentence-level style audit. This is not optional, not triggered by the user, and not limited to full section drafts — it applies to every edit, including paragraph-level changes, subsection additions, and overview rewrites. The audit checks every changed sentence against author_profile/gate_mechanical.md , author_profile/compression_patterns.md , and author_profile/craft_reference.md . Specifically, scan for and fix: Mechanical gate ( gate_mechanical.md ) — run FIRST, with its greps. Em-dashes ( --- , — , -- ) are BANNED. Antithesis/mirror flourishes ("X, not Y"; "whatever it is called"), editorializing closers ("the saving is the point", "is not real"), vacuous intensifiers ("in effect", "at its core"), rule-of-three decoration, throat-clearing openers ("Moreover", "Notably"), banned/pompous/fancy words, and content-free openers ("In this paper, we…") are BANNED. Target the plain, short, declarative register ( craft_reference.md ). Do NOT report the audit as passed without running the grep gate in that file. Negation-first constructions : "not X" or "rather than X" where the sentence should assert what something IS. Reframe positively. Throat-clearing : "We address this problem by", "To address this issue", "In order to", "It should be noted that", "Note that". Delete and lead with the action. Hedging : "can potentially", "can be expected to", "may help reduce", "it is possible that". Replace with assertive voice ("produces", "reduces", "achieves"). Generic adjectives : "significant", "substantial", "highly desirable", "novel", "robust", "comprehensive". Replace with specific numbers or delete. Sentence length : Flag any sentence exceeding 40 words. Split or compress. Passive voice : "accuracy was achieved by X" → "X achieves". "Experiments were conducted on X" → "We evaluate on X". Active voice everywhere — no exceptions, including methods and evaluation. Run the passive-detection grep from author_profile/gate_mechanical.md (§Part C, M11) in this base gate; fix or justify every hit. Missing citations : Technical claims restated from other sections must carry forward their citations (Principle 14). Process : After writing, (a) run the grep gate in gate_mechanical.md Part C and fix every hit, then (b) read the changed text line by line for the items above. Report a summary table of violations found and fixed (category, count), INCLUDING the grep counts (em-dashes, flourishes) — not just "audited". Never claim the audit passed on a mental pass alone. Then (c) run the independent adversarial red-team ( red_team_protocol.md ): a reviewer that did NOT write the text re-runs gate_mechanical.md and applies author_profile/gate_semantic.md (define-before-use, followability, thesis-tie, lexical + decomposition consistency, non-duplication, mappability, honest positioning, and the closure gate) with a fresh-reader lens, returning a findings list, not a yes/no. Only text that survives (a) + (b) + (c), with the grep output pasted as evidence, is presented or committed. Per gate_semantic.md 's closure gate (S31), iterate the red-team after every substantive change until a final closure reviewer returns zero CRITICAL/MAJOR; never defer residual items as "done." This gate is SEPARATE from and IN ADDITION TO the structural section checklists below. Loop mode. When invoked via /loop (e.g. "apply the paper-writing skill iteratively", "audit with loop"), follow loop_mode.md : a resumable, ledger-backed audit → red-team → fix cycle that processes one section per iteration and stops itself when every in-scope section is clean. The user need not specify which checks to run or when to stop — the protocol supplies those. Section Checklists After generating ANY section draft, Claude MUST also read the corresponding structural checklist and run it: Section Checklist file Introduction writing_checklists/intro_questions.md Evaluation writing_checklists/evaluation_questions.md Design / Method writing_checklists/design_questions.md Related Work writing_checklists/related_work_questions.md Flag every violation before presenting the draft. Severity levels: CRITICAL (structural — will cause rejection), MAJOR (visible to reviewers), MINOR (polish-level). Section Rhetorical Moves For detailed guidance on move sequences within each section type, read from section_rhetorical_moves/ : Section File Key moves Introduction section_rhetorical_moves/introduction.md Stakes → Problem Gap → Key Abstraction → Design Intuition → Contributions → Results Preview Evaluation section_rhetorical_moves/evaluation.md Setup Anchoring → Head-to-Head → Deep Dive → Takeaway Synthesis → Ablation → Robustness Design section_rhetorical_moves/design.md Abstraction Introduction → Design Justification → Component Architecture → Key Design Decision → Robustness Related Work section_rhetorical_moves/related_work.md Category Clustering → Per-Category Limitation → Positioning Sentence These contain actionable guidance with concrete examples showing what works and what doesn't, drawn from accepted and rejected systems and ML papers. The Five-Stage Pipeline Every paper goes through these stages in order. Claude identifies which stage the user is in and enforces that stage's rules. Stage 1: Structured Brainstorming → Project Context Creation Gate : The user must have a one-sentence identity statement and contribution claims written as results. If they don't, read brainstorming_guide.md and walk them through all 6 phases interactively. Don't rush — this is the most important stage. A vague project context produces a vague paper. After brainstorming, generate a project_context.md file using the template in examples/project_context.md and save it in the paper's working directory. See examples/netburst_project_context.md for a real example. Important: After creating project_context.md , add it to the project's .gitignore (create the file if it doesn't exist). This file contains strategic framing notes and advisor commentary that should not be committed to shared repositories by default. Stage 2: Architecture Gate : Section outline with claim assignments, per-section narrative arcs, figure/table plan, evaluation structure, and page budget. Craft reference : If the student has run a literature survey (using the literature-survey-skill or manually), check for Pass 3+ paper notes with writing craft extractions — introduction anatomy, evaluation architecture, design section structure, and figure design choices from the strongest papers in their area. Load these as reference material for the architecture. The section structure of the best paper at your target venue is a better starting point for your outline than a generic template. Reading and writing develop together: craft patterns extracted during deep reading feed directly into the architecture of your own paper. Figure/table plan from visualization artifacts : If the student has been working with the data-visualization-skill , check for plot_context.md files and WALTER narrations. Each plot_context.md records the intent, variable mappings, plot type rationale, and design decisions for a figure — these are ready-made entries for the figure/table plan below. Each WALTER narration (Hypothesis → Axes → Look here → Trend → Exception → Result) maps directly to the evaluation prose that will accompany the figure. The iteration the student did in the viz skill — exploring what the data shows, forming predictions, confronting surprises — has already determined which figures carry the argument. The architecture should reflect that. Output a structured table: Section Pages Key claim Figures/Tables ... ... ... ... Non-data figure specs : For each figure in the plan that is NOT a data figure (architecture diagrams, pipeline illustrations, concept diagrams, comparison schematics), read figure_synthesis_guide.md and run spec mode to produce a figure_spec.md . Data figures (CDFs, bar charts, heatmaps, scatter plots) should be routed to the data-visualization-skill . The boundary is clear: if the figure requires experimental data to render, it goes through /viz ; if it illustrates structure, flow, or concepts, it goes through figure synthesis. Stage 3: Section Drafts Enforced order : Draft 0 Introduction → Evaluation → Design/Method → Background → Related Work → Final Introduction → Abstract. The introduction is written twice . This is the most impactful principle in the entire system (Principle 1). Draft 0 Introduction comes first. It is a framing scaffold — stakes, problem gap, rough contribution claims — that sets guardrails for the evaluation. Draft 0 clarifies what the paper is trying to show. It is explicitly disposable: it probably will not survive to the final version. Writing is a thinking tool, not just a communication tool — Draft 0 forces the student to externalize their framing before designing experiments.