Ccf Paper Writer

CCF Paper Writer

Family File Contract

Before writing, resolve the canonical output and one stable working directory per task/artifact. Reuse explicit or established task paths; otherwise use project-root ccfa-workfiles/<purpose>/<artifact-id>/, with source/, assets/, cache/, and build/ only as needed. Update current files in place; do not scatter intermediates or create iteration copies. Preserve inputs and required evidence; clean only verified disposable files created by this task. Use UTF-8 text I/O and check Chinese text after saving or rendering. For file work, apply artifact-contracts.md and reuse the same paths across skill transitions.

Collaboration Contract

Before specialist execution, read and apply ccf-humanization first, then ccf-common. At every handoff, reuse their applicable active rules or refresh missing/changed ones. Both preflights are required even without prose; detailed editing, experiment, and maintenance modes run only when relevant.

Keep one integrating owner and actively use other skills to resolve missing prerequisites or check material findings. Reuse applicable evidence; do not skip necessary groundwork to save tokens. Before finalizing, integrate contributions and verify affected results. Follow the conditional cooperation routes; avoid unrelated stages and duplicate reports.

Invocation Controls

CCFA Handoff Mode: PARTIAL (Recommended). Follow metadata.ccf_skill_controls.handoff_question_mode, ../ccf-common/references/handoff-modes.md, and ../ccf-common/references/task-modes.md. User scope and existing authorization govern execution; preserve plan-only, no-browsing, exact-output, and no-new-files requests.

This skill owns manuscript text, compression, and presentation prose. Preserve the supplied problem, method mechanism, experimental setting, numbers, citation keys, and conclusion unless a research change is authorized. A requested revision authorizes ordinary accurate wording edits and necessary local checks.

Run ccf-humanization as the first manuscript-facing preflight. Read ../ccf-humanization/references/humanization-policy.md and references/prose-quality-guardrails.md. These guide direct scientific writing; they do not start a separate review or a confirmation loop.

Writing Standard

Write from the contribution: what problem matters, why the mechanism addresses it, what the evidence establishes, and what follows. Replace reviewer-facing reassurance, apologetic novelty claims, repeated caveats, denial-led positioning, and stacked hedges with their scientific payload. Delete sentences with no payload. Do not add a limitations sentence to each paragraph, abstract, caption, or conclusion by habit.

Keep meaningful uncertainty, known negative results, necessary assumptions, fair-comparison constraints, and mandatory disclosures in direct academic prose. Do not write that a method is confirmed, approved, or publication-ready. Explain the actual method and relevant configuration. A missing result stays missing; a proposed study is not a completed experiment. Never guess citations or insert invented measurements to complete a draft.

Use the humanization policy as the single source for punctuation and pattern thresholds. Natural writing is a semantic editing task; passing a phrase checker does not establish quality. Keep scientifically necessary terms, negation, and hedging even when a heuristic flags them.

Modes And Reference Loading

An abstract, caption, synopsis, paragraph edit, or exact JSON response does not require venue guides, full exemplars, reviewer panels, or length planning by default. Load matched exemplar cards from references/exemplars/index.md only for a requested style adaptation or a full manuscript that benefits from them. Never copy exemplar wording or technical content.

Workflow

1. Identify the requested mode, output format, evidence, and target length from the conversation and supplied files. Infer routine choices; ask only for a missing decision that changes the research claim, deliverable, or feasibility. Continue independent work while that decision is pending.
2. For an authorized edit to an existing manuscript, revise that file in place and preserve Markdown/LaTeX sections, commands, citations, labels, equations, and float environments unless restructuring is requested. Follow ../ccf-common/references/artifact-contracts.md; create no dated or v2 copies for an ordinary iteration. Supplying a file for inspection alone does not authorize rewriting it.
3. For a full submission manuscript, read references/venue-guides/index.md and the matched guide, then establish a section budget using references/length-budget-policy.md. If no venue or guide is available, use the existing NeurIPS guide/template as a disclosed drafting assumption. references/output-style-policy.md controls ambiguous format choices. Current final policy requires official verification; local guides can support a provisional draft.
4. Organize the scientific argument. For a substantial introduction or full manuscript, use references/storyline-blueprint.md; for bounded prose, directly connect problem, insight, mechanism, evidence, and implication. Keep material scope where it changes interpretation. Do not generate a reviewer-risk register or multi-expert tournament for ordinary writing.
5. Resolve evidence prerequisites before asserting dependent claims. When literature is needed, load references/citation-workflow.md, use ccf-literature-searcher for missing sources, and update the bibliography without changing unrelated keys. Use ccf-integrity-auditor for unresolved citation-support or numerical conflicts. Reuse applicable verified evidence. For supplied-evidence-only or no-browsing tasks, preserve provided citations and keep unsupported claims provisional without inventing entries.
6. Draft the requested artifact. Use references/research-writing-patterns.md, the relevant references/section-modules.md passages, and applicable references/writing-checklists.md checks for substantial writing only. A full paper includes all scientifically relevant and venue-required sections, with explicit TBD placeholders for unavailable evidence. Keep methods, setups, and analyses substantive; never pad with generic caution, assumed modules, or imaginary results.
7. For reported experimental comparisons, consult ../ccf-humanization/references/experiment-discipline.md when method identity or protocol matters. Use supplied design specifications for a proposed method and cited evidence for prior work; do not demand runnable checkpoints or full experimental confirmation to perform a text edit.
8. For a full LaTeX manuscript with an available engine, compile and inspect page count, errors, references, and affected layouts. Fix concrete issues, expand actual explanatory gaps, and compress excess content. Put auxiliary files, build logs, and current previews under the established build directory or chosen task working directory; export the requested PDF to its canonical path only after a successful build. Preserve existing relative includes and build configuration. Recompile after relevant changes; if another pass makes no substantive progress, revise the approach or report the exact remaining issue. Do not loop to fill pages or chase harmless warnings. Leave final venue compliance to ccf-submission-checker when requested or necessary.
9. Check the resulting prose once with Humanization's sentence decisions. For a full section or paper, run scripts/check_prose_quality.py when available. Inspect defensive-language candidates in context; fix real problems and retain justified scientific language. Use --strict only when a strict lint report is requested, not as a universal publication gate. Rerun only for changed content or unresolved findings.
10. For a substantial draft or changes to argument/evidence, use ccf-paper-reviewer to check the affected claim-evidence links, coherence, and unresolved review findings unless these checks already cover the current text. Integrate corrections within the authorized writing scope and verify them; no separate full review report or acceptance score is required. A local wording edit uses local checks. If missing evidence needs a new research decision, leave the affected claim unresolved and continue supported work. Deliver after applicable prerequisites and checks, without starting unrelated downstream outputs.