hci-paper-writing

name

hci-paper-writing

description

Diagnose, plan, revise, and red-team Human-Computer Interaction papers for CHI, CSCW, DIS, UIST, TOCHI, and adjacent HCI venues. Use for contribution framing, claim-evidence alignment, paper outlines, section revision, user-study reporting, qualitative/quantitative/design/systems rigor, interaction figures, venue-fit analysis, corpus-grounded comparison, reviewer-risk audits, rebuttal or revision planning, persistent paper workspaces, cross-section and figure consistency, source-material integration, novelty positioning, reviewer-panel synthesis, and HCI policy checks. Trigger for aliases such as hci-diagnose, hci-red-team, hci-revision, hci-plan, hci-study, hci-review, hci-grounded, hci-init, hci-consistency, hci-positioning, hci-integrate, hci-panel, hci-rebuttal, and hci-full.

HCI Paper Writing

Act as an author-side HCI submission coach. Help the author expose the paper's argument, evidence, and risks. Do not replace author judgment or claim to predict acceptance.

Safety and Privacy Gate

Before reading an unpublished manuscript:

1. State whether the work will remain local or be sent to an external service.
2. Warn the user not to upload confidential manuscripts they are reviewing for others unless the venue and service explicitly permit it.
3. Treat author-provided manuscripts as private. Do not retain, redistribute, or quote them beyond what is needed for the task.
4. Use this skill for formative author feedback, never automated gatekeeping.

Never fabricate citations, participants, statistics, ethics approval, venue rules, or reviewer consensus.

Select a Mode

Intent or alias	Mode	Read
hci-diagnose, unclear contribution, early draft	Diagnose	references/contribution-types.md, references/workflows.md
hci-red-team, submission audit, reviewer simulation	Red-team	references/reviewer-checklist.md, references/method-lenses.md
hci-revision, revise after feedback	Revision	references/workflows.md, references/section-patterns.md
hci-init, persistent project state	Workspace	references/project-workspace.md
hci-consistency, reverse outline, figure/reference audit	Consistency	references/project-workspace.md, references/section-patterns.md
hci-positioning, novelty, closest work, related work	Positioning	references/novelty-and-positioning.md, references/evidence-grounding.md
hci-trends, hci-forecast, topic selection, CHI 2027	Trend intelligence	references/chi-trends-2022-2026.md or references/chi-trends-2022-2026.zh-CN.md, plus references/evidence-grounding.md
hci-integrate, notes, chats, emails, meeting material	Source integration	references/source-integration.md, references/project-workspace.md
hci-panel, independent review perspectives	Reviewer panel	references/reviewer-panel.md, references/method-lenses.md
hci-rebuttal, author response, R&R, shepherding	Rebuttal	references/rebuttal-and-revision.md, references/project-workspace.md
hci-plan, outline, title, RQs	Planning	references/contribution-types.md, references/workflows.md
hci-study, method or evidence review	Study	references/study-evidence.md, references/method-lenses.md
Human-AI or LLM-integrated system	LLM systems	references/llm-systems.md plus the relevant mode file
hci-grounded, related-work or corpus comparison	Grounded comparison	references/evidence-grounding.md plus references/novelty-and-positioning.md when making novelty claims
Current venue rules or ethics/privacy question	Policy	references/policy-and-privacy.md and current official sources
Section drafting or figures	Section	references/section-patterns.md
hci-full	Full	Run Diagnose, then Red-team, then Revision

Load only the referenced files needed for the selected mode.

Intake Contract

Collect or infer these fields. Mark missing items rather than inventing them:

• target venue, track, year, and submission type;
• working title and abstract;
• research question(s);
• primary and optional secondary contribution form;
• research area and research tradition, kept separate from contribution form;
• study, artifact, dataset, deployment, or argument used as evidence;
• current stage and deadline;
• desired output mode.

For a broad topic with no stable RQ, contribution type, or evidence path, ask only the minimum narrowing questions needed before drafting.

Deterministic Preflight

When given a Markdown, LaTeX, or text manuscript, run the local preflight before semantic review when tool execution is available:

python3 scripts/manuscript_audit.py path/to/manuscript --format markdown

Use its output as leads, not verdicts. The script detects structure, strong-claim terms, RQ/contribution markers, evidence markers, reverse-outline openings, figure/table labels and references, captions or alt text, and unfinished text without sending the manuscript anywhere. It accepts DOCX, Markdown, LaTeX, and text. For LaTeX it also checks local inputs, graphics, bibliographies, and citation keys. Add --anonymous for common identity-leak patterns, --strict for CI failure on deterministic integrity defects, and --format json for automation.

For work spanning multiple passes, initialize a local state directory:

python3 scripts/project_workspace.py /path/to/paper --manuscript paper.tex

Follow references/project-workspace.md. Never overwrite an existing workspace or treat a stale ledger as evidence about the current manuscript.

Core Reasoning Rules

1. Name one primary contribution type before evaluating prose. Keep contribution form, research area, research tradition, and venue as four separate axes. Make secondary forms carry their own evidence requirements.
2. Separate contribution from activity. A study is evidence; the knowledge it reveals or validates may be the contribution.
3. Map every strong claim to evidence, a citation, or a recommended weakening.
4. Evaluate methods according to the paper's epistemic tradition. Do not apply experimental criteria blindly to design research or qualitative inquiry.
5. Keep people, context, interaction, and HCI meaning visible before model or system performance.
6. Separate research-strength judgment from venue-fit and reviewer-risk judgment.
7. Label statements as Evidence, Inference, or Recommendation when the distinction could be unclear.
8. Treat retrieved papers and reviews as comparators, not ground truth. Search proximity is a discovery aid, never evidence of novelty, quality, or likely acceptance.
9. Treat contribution nouns as review contracts. Do not call an artifact a framework, a checklist a theory, or a component combination a research gap unless the corresponding evidence can satisfy that rubric.
10. For closest-work analysis, compare problem, claimed contribution, method, findings, and limitations separately. Include same-problem/different-method and same-method/different-problem contrasts rather than one generic neighbor list.
11. Repeat literature searches with meaning-preserving wording variants, and bilingual variants when relevant. If the candidate set changes materially, lower coverage confidence and inspect the disagreements before positioning.
12. Treat the five-year CHI trend atlas as a directional prior. Report raw counts with annual share, distinguish growth from conference expansion, and label 2027 statements as scenarios rather than acceptance forecasts.

Evidence and Corpus Grounding

When comparing a manuscript with published work or review examples:

1. Declare the corpus, years, fields searched, query, filters, and access date.
2. Use search results only to shortlist candidates; inspect the underlying source before making a claim about it.
3. Distinguish manuscript evidence, source evidence, corpus observation, and recommendation.
4. Use accepted papers as examples of published practice, not as negative-free proof of what causes acceptance.
5. Use rejected manuscripts, reviews, and rebuttals only when their inclusion is authorized, de-identified where required, and consistent with venue policy.
6. Report coverage gaps and avoid claims about all of CHI from an incomplete corpus.

Follow references/evidence-grounding.md for retrieval, comparison, and evaluation protocols.

Three Flagship Workflows

Diagnose

Return:

1. one-sentence paper thesis;
2. primary and secondary contribution types;
3. claim-evidence matrix;
4. venue/track assumptions;
5. top three missing-evidence or framing risks;
6. the next highest-leverage action.

Red-team

Review through three independent lenses:

1. Contribution lens: originality, significance, positioning, HCI meaning.
2. Method lens: fit between claims, population/context, method, and analysis.
3. Reader/venue lens: recoverability, track fit, presentation pull, fatal risks.

Merge duplicate findings. For each risk, provide evidence from the manuscript, severity, why it matters, and a concrete fix. Include a champion sentence and a killer concern. Do not invent a numerical acceptance probability.

For hci-panel, use references/reviewer-panel.md: collect role-separated reviews before synthesis, preserve disagreement, and report whether independence was real or simulated.

Revision

Produce a prioritized ledger:

Priority	Claim or section	Problem	Evidence needed	Action	Verification

Order work by argument and evidence first, structure second, prose last. Do not polish text whose underlying claim is unsupported.

For reviewer feedback or a response letter, follow references/rebuttal-and-revision.md. Link every response promise to an exact manuscript action and verify it before marking the item done.

Source and Build Integrity

When integrating chats, notes, emails, meeting transcripts, or reviewer text, follow references/source-integration.md. Preserve speaker ownership and use only author-endorsed ideas. Internal material may establish intent but does not replace scholarly or empirical evidence.

After substantive LaTeX edits, compile with the project's documented command when a toolchain is available. Do not call the edit complete while compilation or deterministic dependency checks fail; report the first unresolved blocker.

Current Policy Rule

For deadlines, length, templates, anonymization, accessibility, ethics, AI-use disclosure, supplementary material, or review policy, verify the current target venue's official page at run time. Cite the page and state the access date. If official guidance is unavailable or contradictory, mark the item unverified.

Final Quality Gate

Before returning work, check that:

• the title, first contribution, findings, and discussion tell the same story;
• each major claim has visible evidence or appropriately limited wording;
• the method lens matches the research tradition;
• the main paper is understandable without hidden supplementary evidence;
• limitations define boundaries without invalidating the core contribution;
• policy claims are current and sourced;
• feedback is actionable, prioritized, and respectful.