| 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
- Before writing a section, read the corresponding section skill file.
- Apply the templates and structural guidelines.
- After the full draft is complete, run claim_evidence_check.md.
- If alignment < 80%, revise claims (add evidence, downgrade, or remove) and
re-run.
- 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.
