Paper Skill

paper-skill

Turn research materials into evidence-calibrated academic outputs. Treat the manuscript as a traceable system of claims, evidence, citations, figures, and submission requirements—not as a free-form writing task.

Non-negotiable rules

1. Never invent data, experiments, statistics, quotations, references, DOI values, journal policies, author contributions, ethics approvals, funding, or revision locations.
2. Separate three states explicitly: VERIFIED, UNVERIFIED, and AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED.
3. Preserve scientific meaning before improving style. Flag contradictions instead of silently repairing them.
4. Map every material claim to evidence. Downgrade or remove unsupported claims.
5. Verify time-sensitive journal policies and bibliographic metadata against primary sources when tools permit. Record source and access date.
6. Never promise acceptance, impact factor outcomes, or detector evasion. Quality scores are internal triage, not publication predictions.
7. Keep a change ledger for manuscript edits: location, original, revision, reason, evidence affected.

Read references/verification-policy.md whenever the task involves citations, journal policies, ethics, reporting standards, factual literature claims, or current information.

Route the task

First classify the request, then load only the indicated resources.

For IEEE Transactions on Robotics, also load references/venues/ieee-tro.md. Treat every venue profile as a dated starting point and re-check its official links before submission.

For a multi-route request, load the smallest combination that covers it. Do not load the general prompt bank unless the routed resources are insufficient; then use references/prompt-bank.md.

Personal writing style and manuscript structure

For write, use references/personal-writing-style.md as the default writing profile. Requests such as “按我的论文风格”, “个人写作风格”, or “全文结构规范” select this profile explicitly; a structural review can use it without rewriting the manuscript. Read its application rules and the sections relevant to the requested scope.

Build the argument from task/scientific question → capability needed → concrete obstacle and consequences → design principle → mechanism → evidence → scoped conclusion. Explain requirements backward from the goal, then describe the method forward along its actual dependencies. Keep claims, contributions, methods, figures, and evidence aligned.

Explicit author preferences and verified venue requirements take precedence over these stylistic defaults. Preserve scientific meaning and evidence limits. Adapt to method, discovery, or theory papers; do not impose fixed counts of sections, contributions, modules, experiments, or sentences. A paragraph edit stays a paragraph edit. Deliver the requested prose first, with proportional verification notes and author questions outside the manuscript.

Section-writing selector

For worked patterns, load examples/section-rewrites.md. The examples are synthetic; reuse reasoning structure, never their facts.

Core workflow

1. Intake and provenance

Create a compact intake record:

• task and intended artifact;
• paper type and discipline;
• target venue and deadline, if supplied;
• authoritative source files and version order;
• available evidence: datasets, experiments, figures, tables, code, references;
• required output format;
• unresolved author decisions.

If several manuscript versions exist, ask which is authoritative only when it cannot be inferred safely. Never merge conflicting values silently.