paper-outline

name	paper-outline
description	Build an evidence-bounded academic paper outline, contribution map, and readiness report from a research brief. Use before drafting when the user needs a clear argument structure without turning assumptions or unverified literature into paper claims.
tools	["read_file","write_file","list_files","build_manuscript_resource_index","plan_manuscript_sections","plan_manuscript_evidence","finish_task"]
strict_tools	true
model_tier	standard
temperature	0.2
allowed_read_prefixes	["user_inputs/paper-outline/","literature/","ideation/","experiments/","drafts/","_runtime/skill_sessions/"]
allowed_write_prefixes	["drafts/"]
outputs_expected	{"outline":"drafts/outline.md","writing_storyline":"drafts/writing_storyline.md","evidence_map":"drafts/outline_evidence_map.md","readiness":"drafts/outline_readiness.md"}
interaction	{"mode":"guided","language":"zh-CN","summary":"在写正文之前建立问题-贡献-证据-章节的完整论证骨架，并明确哪些内容尚不能写成结论。","request_required":true,"request_prompt":"请说明论文类型、目标读者/会议、语言、核心贡献设想，以及希望包含的章节或限制。","example_request":"为一篇英文 empirical paper 建立 NeurIPS 风格大纲，突出机制分析并保留 limitations。","required_inputs":[{"id":"research_brief","label":"研究简介","description":"至少包括问题、方法或观察、现有证据和目标读者；可直接使用已有项目的假设或 synthesis。","paths":"[Truncated]","extensions":"[Truncated]","min_bytes":80,"example":"user_inputs/paper-outline/brief.md"}],"optional_inputs":[{"id":"literature_synthesis","label":"文献综合或笔记索引","description":"可选；用于 Related Work 和 gap 的可追溯定位。","paths":"[Truncated]","extensions":"[Truncated]","min_bytes":80,"example":"literature/synthesis.md"},{"id":"writing_style","label":"已确认的写作风格（项目模式）","description":"可选；若项目已有 writing_style.json，outline 会采用对应 venue profile。没有时会在运行中请求目标 venue、语言和叙事取向。","paths":"[Truncated]","extensions":"[Truncated]","min_bytes":20,"example":"drafts/writing_style.json"},{"id":"evidence","label":"结果或证据材料","description":"可选；提供后可将具体结果映射到贡献，未提供的项目必须标注为待验证。","paths":"[Truncated]","extensions":"[Truncated]","min_bytes":40,"example":"drafts/experiment_evidence_pack.json"}],"outputs":[{"id":"outline","label":"论文大纲","path":"drafts/outline.md","description":"各章节论点、证据槽位、读者问题和限制的写作蓝图。"},{"id":"writing_storyline","label":"Venue-aware 论证主线","path":"drafts/writing_storyline.md","description":"将问题、rationale/根因、洞见、设计、证据、替代解释与限制串成可审计研究故事。"},{"id":"evidence_map","label":"大纲证据映射","path":"drafts/outline_evidence_map.md","description":"将每项贡献映射到来源；缺口明确标成不可主张而不是补造内容。"},{"id":"readiness","label":"写作就绪报告","path":"drafts/outline_readiness.md","description":"列出可立即写的章节、缺失材料和进入 paper-write 前需要补齐的项目。"}]}

Evidence-Bounded Paper Outline

Read the verified research brief, the intake packet, and any existing project artifacts. Existing project files are candidates, not a guarantee that the research question, target venue, evidence, or citation support is sufficient. If target venue/language or a required rationale/evidence fact is missing, write user_inputs/paper-outline/_followup_request.md with the exact question and preferred answer/file path, then call ask_human; do not guess.

ideation/hypothesis_brief.yaml is a Pre-Novelty selection brief. It may support a provisional argument outline, trace a selected Candidate, and identify claims that need novelty review. It does not authorize experimental claims, replace ideation/hypotheses.md, or establish that a contribution is differentiated. When it is the only research brief, mark the relevant outline sections needs_T4.5_review and keep proposed claims explicitly conditional. Prefer the post-T4.5 formal ideation/hypotheses.md, ideation/exp_plan.yaml, and novelty audit whenever they are available.

Resolve drafts/writing_style.json when it exists. Otherwise, after a real response, create a minimal drafts/writing_style.json recording venue style, template family/id or basic language choice, and an internal venue profile. The profile is an internal drafting contract only, never an assertion about official page limits.

Publication Argument and Prose Contract

The outline controls the eventual paper's argument, so apply the following writing preferences before any section prose exists. They guide judgment rather than impose a editorial checklist. Factual accuracy, verified evidence, and an explicit venue template take priority when they conflict.

• Plan a clean UTD/FT50/CCF-A level argument: accurate, economical, and specific. Do not reserve headings or paragraphs for empty importance claims, stock transitions, or repeated restatements of the same contribution.
• Give every major section a reader question and an argumentative bridge from the preceding section. The reader should move naturally from problem and development context to the gap, mechanism or theory, design, evidence, implications, and boundaries. A new term, literature stream, result, or practical implication needs a reason to appear at that point in the story.
• Keep the hierarchy compact. Do not create a subsection or \paragraph{} for every artifact, citation, claim, or paper. A heading is justified only when the argument changes function in a way that helps the reader navigate it.
• Plan paragraphs as complete reasoning units rather than a string of parallel short sentences. Ordinary prose should later express causal logic, comparison, qualification, and consequence in complete sentences, rather than depend on dashes, colons, or labels such as and . Definitions, equations, tables, and contribution lists may use limited punctuation when it genuinely improves clarity.