| name | tech-paper-template |
| description | Structures a technical paper's full logical skeleton using a thinking-template table (research background, limitations, key idea or goal, challenges, methodology modules, contributions), positions the paper as Technique or New Problem/Setting, and runs a four-point self-consistency check. Use when the user is brainstorming a paper, discussing progress with an advisor, or planning the paper before drafting. Also use for 'paper skeleton', 'paper logic chain', 'thinking template', 'paper-structure planning'. |
| license | CC-BY-4.0 |
Tech Paper Template
Overview
Before drafting any prose, a technical paper needs a full logical
skeleton: the research background, the specific limitations of prior
work, the key idea or research goal, the technical challenges that
prevent a naive solution, the methodology modules that address each
challenge, and the contributions that the paper will claim. This
skill fills in that skeleton via a standardised thinking-template
table, positions the paper type, and runs four self-consistency
checks on the logic chain.
The output is a filled-in thinking template plus a consistency
report. It is suitable for advisor-student brainstorming sessions,
weekly progress meetings, and the final planning step before writing
begins. It does not draft Introduction prose (use intro-drafter for
that); it operates at the logical-skeleton layer.
When to use this skill
- Early brainstorming of a paper project.
- Weekly progress meeting with an advisor or collaborator.
- Pre-drafting planning after
idea-evaluator returns Strong Accept.
- The paper's logic chain feels incoherent and needs an audit.
- The user asks for 'paper skeleton', 'paper logic chain', 'thinking
template', or 'paper-structure planning'.
- The user is unsure whether their paper is Technique or New
Problem/Setting.
When NOT to use this skill
- The paper is a benchmark paper. Use
benchmark-paper-template (separate plugin).
- The user needs an Introduction-specific paragraph outline. Use
intro-drafter (typically run this skill first, then
intro-drafter).
- The user has a written draft and wants review feedback. Use
pre-submission-reviewer.
- The idea itself is not yet vetted. Use
idea-evaluator first.
Core procedure
Step 1: Paper-type positioning
See: references/paper-types.md for the positioning criteria and
worked examples.
Decide Technique versus New Problem/Setting. In Technique, the Key
Idea carries the narrative and Our Goal is a short bridge. In New
Problem/Setting, Our Goal is the contribution and the Key Idea
justifies feasibility.
If the user's inputs describe a benchmark, stop and redirect to
benchmark-paper-template (separate plugin).
Step 2: Fill the thinking template
See: references/thinking-template.md for each template cell's content
contract, what a strong cell looks like, and common failure modes.
Fill the seven cells:
- Research background. Scenario, importance, motivation.
- Limitations 1 through 3 (2 is acceptable; more than 3 is not).
- Key idea or Our Goal. One sentence.
- Challenges 1 through 3 (similar cap).
- Methodology modules. One module per challenge.
- Contributions (3 or 4, each mapped to a section).
If a cell is incomplete given the user's inputs, mark it as a gap
with severity.
Step 3: Run four self-consistency checks
See: references/consistency-checks.md for the detailed checking
procedure and examples of chain breaks.
Run each check:
- Limitations to Key Idea: does the Key Idea or Goal address
the stated Limitations? If not, either the Limitations are
wrong or the Key Idea is misaligned.
- Key Idea to Challenges: do the Challenges arise naturally
from implementing the Key Idea? If not, the challenges are
invented to justify modules rather than derived from the idea.
- Challenges to Methodology: does each methodology module
address one challenge? If not, there is a module without
justification or a challenge without a fix.
- Methodology to Contributions: do the contributions cover
each module or experimental result? If not, contributions are
vague or promising more than the paper delivers.
Every failure is CRITICAL.
Step 4: Generate methodology outline
See: references/thinking-template.md for the methodology-outline
template.
From the challenges, derive a methodology outline: topic sentence,
per-module subsection names, and per-module one-sentence summary.
This becomes the skeleton for Section 3 or 4 of the paper.
Step 5: Integrity gate
Before emitting, run the checks in the Integrity gate section
below.
Step 6: Output
Emit the filled template plus the consistency report in the
Output format below.
Integrity gate
All seven bullets are [inspection] class: the LLM verifies each
directly from the filled template (counting, pattern-matching, or
comparing cells). No user-side attestation required.
Before returning the filled template:
- [inspection] Paper-type positioning is consistent with the
user's actual contribution (Technique paper not shoehorned into
New Problem framing, or vice versa).
- [inspection] Limitations are specific and cited-able, not
vague.
- [inspection] Key Idea or Goal is a single sentence a
reviewer could quote.
- [inspection] Challenges derive from implementing the Key
Idea; they are not invented.
- [inspection] Methodology modules have one-to-one mapping
with challenges.
- [inspection] Contributions map to methodology modules and
to specific sections.
- [inspection] All four self-consistency checks pass.
If any check fails, mark the skeleton as "needs user attention".
Output format
1. Paper-type positioning
- Type: <Technique Paper or New Problem/Setting Paper>
- Rationale:
2. Thinking template
| Stage | Your content |
|---|
| Research background | ... |
| Limitation 1 | ... |
| Limitation 2 | ... |
| Limitation 3 (if applicable) | ... |
| Key Idea / Our Goal | ... |
| Challenge 1 | ... |
| Challenge 2 | ... |
| Challenge 3 (if applicable) | ... |
| Methodology topic sentence | ... |
| Module A (addresses Challenge 1) | ... |
| Module B (addresses Challenge 2) | ... |
| Module C (addresses Challenge 3) | ... |
| Contribution 1 | ... (Section ) |
| Contribution 2 | ... (Section ) |
| Contribution 3 | ... (Section ) |
3. Self-consistency checks
- Check 1 Limitations -> Key Idea:
- Check 2 Key Idea -> Challenges:
- Check 3 Challenges -> Methodology:
- Check 4 Methodology -> Contributions:
4. Severity summary
- CRITICAL, MAJOR, MINOR.
- Top three fixes first: ...
5. Next suggested skill
- If all checks pass:
intro-drafter to produce the Introduction
paragraph outline.
- If checks fail: address the flagged chain breaks first.
