evidence-bound-section-drafting

id	paper_writing_section_drafting
name	Evidence-Bound Section Drafting
description	Section-level writing skill for evidence-bound academic prose: IMRaD papers, grants, reports, talks, and response letters. Indexes section-specific templates (abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion) and pre-submission quality protocols (claim-evidence, reviewer rubric, response letter).
tags	["paper_writing","writing","imrad"]

Evidence-Bound Section Drafting

Use only after triage, outline, and evidence boundaries exist (see ../workflow/SKILL.md and ../SKILL.md).

Drafting Rules

• Write draft/paper.md as the content source of truth.
• Keep each core claim within claim_evidence_map.md.
• Use missing evidence to ask for material, downgrade, or remove claims.
• Do not invent data, citations, mechanisms, reviewer changes, or availability statements.
• For major rewrites, shape from raw material to candidate openings to paragraph-by-paragraph structure before polishing.

Section Roles (quick reference)

Section	Role	Quality gate
Title	searchable, precise, not inflated	no vague clever title
Abstract	problem, gap, method, key result, meaning	no result-free impact claim
Introduction	known → gap → insufficiency → approach → contribution	gap and contribution align
Related work	themed positioning	not chronological paper dump
Methods	reproducible protocol	data/software/parameters/statistics clear
Results	question → method → observation → quantitative result → interpretation	each result points to figure/table/data
Discussion	finding, relation to literature, mechanism, limits, future	no new data
Limitations	honest boundary and risk	no hidden fatal flaw
Conclusion	contribution and boundary	not abstract repetition

Section-Specific Skills

Read the corresponding skill file before drafting each section.

Section	File	Focus
Abstract	abstract.md	Three proven templates (Challenge→Contribution, Challenge→Insight→Contribution, Multiple Contributions); 150–250 words; no citations
Introduction	introduction.md	Logic Map: Task → Challenge → Solution → Advantage; backward writing
Methods	method.md	Reproducibility checklist: software versions, parameters, hardware, data/code statements
Results	results.md	Each subsection ≥1 figure/table reference; claim → evidence; present tense
Discussion	discussion.md	Four-part structure: Interpretation → Comparison → Limitations → Future
Response Letter	response_letter.md	Reviewer-comment-to-response unit format

Quality Protocols

Skill	File	Purpose
Claim-Evidence Check	claim_evidence_check.md	Verify every major claim has supporting evidence; target ≥80%
Reviewer Rubric (NeurIPS-style)	reviewer_rubric.md	6-dimension peer-review simulation with worked example

Usage

1. Before writing a section, read the corresponding section skill file.
2. Apply the templates and structural guidelines.
3. After the full draft is complete, run claim_evidence_check.md.
4. If alignment < 80%, revise claims (add evidence, downgrade, or remove) and re-run.
5. For submissions, grants, or revision responses, optionally simulate peer review using reviewer_rubric.md.

Quality Standards

• Clarity: clear, concise, unambiguous language
• Evidence: every claim backed by citation, data, or figure
• Structure: logical flow and organization
• Reproducibility: sufficient detail for replication
• Impact: clear contribution and boundary

Sources: Research-Paper-Writing-Skills (Master-cai, MIT), AI-Scientist (SakanaAI, MIT), ResearAI writer.md, K-Dense scientific-writing/SKILL.md, mattpocock writing-shape/SKILL.md.