outline

name	outline
description	Turn a thesis + target venue into a claim-driven IMRaD outline — each section is the one claim it establishes plus the evidence needed and a word budget — ready for MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md, flagging evidence missing from the library
user-invocable	true

Outline

Core Rule

A section is not a topic — it is one claim the manuscript must establish, plus the evidence that establishes it. Outline by claim, not by heading. Every section in the plan answers: what disputable point does this establish, and what evidence (cited or our own) supports it? If a section's claim has no evidence in the library, the outline says so — it does not paper over the gap with a heading. You cannot outline to a thesis you have not read, and you must never assume a source exists to fill a slot.

The output is structured to drop into MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md → Structure so the plan-of-record and the outline are the same artifact.

When to Use

Invoke with /outline when:

• Starting a manuscript — you have a thesis and a target venue and need a section plan.
• The argument has drifted and you need to re-derive the structure from the thesis.
• Adding a major section and want it to carry exactly one claim with a budget.
• Before drafting any section, to confirm the evidence exists before you write around it.

If the thesis is not yet one sentence, stop and sharpen it first — an outline built on a fuzzy thesis inherits the fuzziness.

Process

Phase 1: Lock the Thesis and Contribution

1. Read MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md — the Thesis (one sentence), Contribution, Audience, target venue. If the Thesis is still a <placeholder>, the manuscript is not ready to outline — surface that and ask the author for the one-sentence claim.
2. Restate the thesis as a claim a reader could dispute. "A paper about agent reliability" is a topic; "A deterministic verification gate reduces hallucinated tool calls in LLM agents without lowering task completion" is a claim. The whole outline serves this sentence.
3. State the contribution delta — what the reader knows after this paper that they did not before, distinguished from prior work. Every section either builds toward this delta or is off-thesis.

Phase 2: Read the Venue's Shape

1. Target venue conventions — from MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md and (if it exists) the field overlay in agent_docs/field/. IMRaD is the default, but venues vary: some merge Results+Discussion, some want a structured abstract, some cap sections. Note length and display-item limits.
2. Audience calibration — what the readership already knows (skip it) vs. what must be established (cite it). This decides how much the Introduction must do. A specialist methods venue needs less background than a broad-readership journal.

Phase 3: Derive Sections from the Argument

For a standard IMRaD manuscript, assign each section the one claim it establishes:

Section	The single claim it establishes
Abstract	The whole argument in ~200 words: gap → what we did → what we found → why it matters.
Introduction	"This gap exists, it matters, and we close it." Establish the gap (cited), its importance (cited), and the contribution (ours).
Methods	"Here is exactly what we did — reproducibly." No claims about results; an account a reader could replicate.
Results	"This is what the data show." Observations only — no interpretation, no causal language.
Discussion	"Here is what it means, where it is limited, and what follows." Interpretation calibrated to the evidence; limits stated honestly.
Conclusion	"The contribution, restated; here is the future work." No new claims.

Adapt to the venue's actual structure — but every section still owes exactly one claim. If a section owes two, split it; if two sections owe the same claim, merge them.

Phase 4: Attach Evidence and Budgets

For each section, specify:

1. Evidence needed — the specific support for its claim:
   • Cited — which references establish it. Check they exist in references.bib. Name the keys.
   • Our own — which result/figure/table/data (cross-ref MANUSCRIPT_MAP → Figures & tables).
   • Common knowledge — what needs no cite for this audience.
2. Word budget — a number that keeps the section from sprawling. Budgets sum toward the venue's length limit. Use texcount for live counts later; estimate here (CLAUDE.md → Model vs Code — counting is deterministic, don't guess once drafting starts).
3. Evidence status — for each piece of cited evidence: in library / MISSING. A claim whose support is not in references.bib + sources/ gets a GAP flag. Do not assume a source exists — if you cannot point to it, it is missing.

Phase 5: Flag Gaps — Never Fabricate to Fill Them

The most valuable outline output: what evidence the argument needs that the library does not have.

• For every section whose claim depends on a source not in the library, emit a GAP: the claim, the kind of source needed, and where to look. This is honest scaffolding ([CITE] in spirit), not a fabricated citation.
• If the thesis depends on a claim with no available evidence at all, say so plainly — that may mean the thesis is not yet supportable, which the author needs to know before drafting, not after.

Phase 6: Emit the Outline for MANUSCRIPT_MAP

Produce the outline in the MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md → Structure table shape plus a per-section claim+evidence block and a consolidated gap list. Do not overwrite MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md unless the author asks — present the outline for them to merge.

Output Format

# Outline — <manuscript title>
> Target venue: ACL (~8 pages + unlimited appendix, numbered style)
> Thesis: A deterministic verification gate reduces hallucinated tool calls in LLM agents without lowering task completion.
> Contribution: first study of pre-execution verification gating for agent tool calls; prior work is single-turn QA only.

## Structure (drops into MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md)
| Section | File | Claim it establishes | Budget | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract | sections/abstract.tex | whole argument in 200 w | 200 w | not started |
| Introduction | sections/intro.tex | hallucinated tool calls in multi-turn agents are understudied; we close the gap | 800 w | not started |
| Methods | sections/methods.tex | reproducible account of the verification gate + evaluation | 1500 w | not started |
| Results | sections/results.tex | tool-call accuracy by task horizon (data only) | 1200 w | not started |
| Discussion | sections/discussion.tex | interpretation, limits, implications | 1500 w | not started |
| Conclusion | sections/conclusion.tex | contribution restated, future work | 300 w | not started |

## Section detail
### Introduction — "hallucinated tool calls in multi-turn agents are understudied; we close the gap" (800 w)
- Evidence (cited): hallucination prevalence/context — `halluc2022` (in library); the
  tool-use baseline is single-turn QA only — `tooluse2023` (in library, do NOT overclaim as multi-turn agentic).
- Evidence (ours): the contribution statement.
- GAP: need a source establishing that *multi-turn agentic* tool-call hallucination
  specifically is understudied. Nothing in references.bib covers this. → search recent reviews;
  leave [CITE] until found. Do not assert "no prior work" without it.

### Results — "tool-call accuracy by task horizon" (1200 w)
- Evidence (ours): Tab:toolacc (by task horizon), Fig:horizon. Confirm both exist.
- No citations — observations only. No causal language here (that's Discussion).

[... one block per section ...]

## Evidence Gaps (fill before drafting the dependent section)
1. **[Intro]** "multi-turn tool-call hallucination understudied" — no supporting review in library. (blocks the gap framing)
2. **[Discussion]** horizon-scaling mechanism — no mechanistic source. (blocks interpretation ¶2)
3. **[Methods]** citation for the agent harness — not in references.bib.

## Off-thesis (parked → MANUSCRIPT_MAP → Not Now)
- Latency cost of the gate vs post-hoc self-correction — interesting, but not what the thesis defends.

Pairs With

• MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md — the outline's Structure block is authored for this file; keep them in sync.
• /journal-fit — run first or alongside to confirm the venue shape (length, structure, style) the outline must obey.
• /claim-check — after drafting a section, verify the claims the outline promised are the claims actually made (and supported).
• agent_docs/writing-workflow.md — the full outline template and the Question→Evidence→Draft→Verify→Cite loop this skill front-loads.
• block-fabrication.sh — if you try to satisfy a GAP by writing a stub reference, this blocks it. The GAP stays a GAP until a real source fills it.

Common Rationalizations

Rationalization	Reality
"I'll find sources for the gaps while drafting"	Drafting around a source you intend to find is how fabrications and dead [CITE]s ship. Find it first or flag the GAP.
"This section is obviously needed"	Every section must establish a disputable claim toward the thesis. "Obviously needed" with no claim is padding.
"Budgets are guesses, skip them"	A section with no budget sprawls and crowds out the section that carries the contribution. Budget it.
"The thesis is roughly X"	A roughly-stated thesis produces a roughly-argued paper. Sharpen to one disputable sentence before outlining.

Notes

• Outlining is argument architecture — run on the Reasoner model (CLAUDE.md → Model Selection).
• A GAP is not a failure of the outline; it is the outline doing its job — telling you what to source before you write.
• Keep off-thesis ideas in Not Now, not smuggled into a section. Scope discipline starts at the outline.