paper-write

name	paper-write
description	Draft LaTeX paper section by section from an outline. Use when user says "写论文", "write paper", "draft LaTeX", "开始写", or wants to generate LaTeX content from a paper plan.
argument-hint	[venue-or-section] [— style-ref: <source>]
allowed-tools	Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply

Paper Write: Section-by-Section LaTeX Generation

Draft a LaTeX paper based on: $ARGUMENTS

Constants

• REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.5 — Model used via Codex MCP for section review. Must be an OpenAI model.
• TARGET_VENUE = ICLR — Default venue. Supported: ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR (also ICCV/ECCV), ACL (also EMNLP/NAACL), AAAI, ACM (ACM MM, SIGIR, KDD, CHI, etc.), IEEE_JOURNAL (IEEE Transactions / Letters, e.g., T-PAMI, JSAC, TWC, TCOM, TSP, TIP), IEEE_CONF (IEEE conferences, e.g., ICC, GLOBECOM, INFOCOM, ICASSP). Determines style file and formatting.
• ANONYMOUS = true — If true, use anonymous author block. Set false for camera-ready. Note: most IEEE venues do NOT use anonymous submission — set false for IEEE.
• MAX_PAGES = 9 — Main body page limit. For ML conferences: counts from first page to end of Conclusion section, references and appendix NOT counted. For IEEE venues: references ARE counted toward the page limit. Typical limits: IEEE journal = no strict limit (but 12-14 pages typical for Transactions, 4-5 for Letters), IEEE conference = 5-8 pages including references.
• DBLP_BIBTEX = true — Fetch real BibTeX from DBLP/CrossRef instead of LLM-generated entries. Eliminates hallucinated citations. Zero install required. Final bibliography entries default to published conference/journal versions; arXiv is a discovery source only unless the user explicitly accepts an unpublished-preprint exception.

Inputs

1. PAPER_PLAN.md — outline with claims-evidence matrix, section plan, figure plan (from /paper-plan)
2. NARRATIVE_REPORT.md — the research narrative (primary source of content)
3. Generated figures — PDF/PNG files in figures/ (from /paper-figure)
4. LaTeX includes — figures/latex_includes.tex (from /paper-figure)
5. Bibliography — existing .bib file, or will create one

If no PAPER_PLAN.md exists, ask the user to run /paper-plan first or provide a brief outline.

Draft Readiness and Composition Order

Before prose, re-read the one-sentence contribution and the Claim–Evidence–Figure Storyboard in PAPER_PLAN.md. If the research question, main finding, significance, figure evidence, or permitted conclusion is still unstable, stop and return to /paper-plan or the evidence audit; do not write around an unresolved result.

Compose the first draft in evidence order, while preserving the plan's conventional final section order in main.tex:

1. frozen contribution and figure storyboard;
2. Methods / setup needed to interpret the evidence;
3. Results in storyboard order;
4. Discussion (interpretation, literature comparison, limitations);
5. Introduction;
6. Abstract and title.

This is a composition sequence, not a requirement to reorder the submitted paper. It prevents an attractive Introduction from getting ahead of the available evidence.

Orchestra-Guided Writing Overlay

Keep the existing insleep workflow, file layout, and defaults. Use the shared references below only when they improve writing quality:

• Read ../../shared-references/writing-principles.md before drafting the Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, or when prose feels generic.
• Read ../../shared-references/paper-writing-rules.md before drafting section prose, citations, math notation, figures/tables, and experiment discussion.
• Read ../../shared-references/icde-yu-memory-paper-structure.md before initializing a new IEEE/Overleaf paper or drafting a systems, memory, query-processing, or benchmark paper.
• Read ../../shared-references/venue-checklists.md during the final write-up and submission-readiness pass.
• Read ../../shared-references/citation-discipline.md only when the built-in DBLP/CrossRef workflow is insufficient.

These references are support material, not extra workflow phases.

Optional: Style reference (— style-ref: <source>, opt-in)

Lets the user steer structural style (section ordering, theorem density, sentence cadence, figure density, bibliography style) toward a reference paper. Default OFF — when the user does not pass — style-ref, do nothing differently from before.

Only when — style-ref: <source> appears in $ARGUMENTS, run the helper FIRST, before drafting:

# Resolve $STYLE_HELPER via the canonical strict-safe chain (see
# shared-references/integration-contract.md §2). Policy A — gate:
# unresolved helper means --style-ref cannot be satisfied, so abort.
cd "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)" || exit 1
if [ -z "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f .debuffer_skills/installed-skills.txt ]; then
    ARIS_REPO=$(awk -F'\t' '$1=="repo_root"{print $2; exit}' .debuffer_skills/installed-skills.txt 2>/dev/null) || true
fi
STYLE_HELPER=".debuffer_skills/tools/extract_paper_style.py"
[ -f "$STYLE_HELPER" ] || STYLE_HELPER="tools/extract_paper_style.py"
[ -f "$STYLE_HELPER" ] || { [ -n "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && STYLE_HELPER="$ARIS_REPO/tools/extract_paper_style.py"; }
[ -f "$STYLE_HELPER" ] || {
  echo "ERROR: extract_paper_style.py not resolved at .debuffer_skills/tools/, tools/, or \$ARIS_REPO/tools/." >&2
  echo "       Fix: rerun bash tools/install_aris.sh, export ARIS_REPO, or copy the helper to tools/." >&2
  echo "       --style-ref cannot be satisfied; aborting." >&2
  exit 1
}
STYLE_STATUS=0
CACHE=$(python3 "$STYLE_HELPER" --source "<source>") || STYLE_STATUS=$?
case "$STYLE_STATUS" in
  0) ;;                                       # use $CACHE/style_profile.md as structural guidance
  2) echo "warning: style-ref skipped (missing optional dep)" >&2 ;;
  3) echo "error: --style-ref source failed; aborting draft" >&2 ; exit 1 ;;
  *) echo "error: helper failed unexpectedly; aborting draft" >&2 ; exit 1 ;;
esac

Sources accepted: local TeX dir / file, local PDF, arXiv id (2501.12345 or arxiv:2501.12345), http(s) URL. Overleaf URLs and project IDs are rejected — clone via /overleaf-sync setup <id> first and pass the local clone path.

Strict rules (full contract in tools/extract_paper_style.py docstring):

• Use style_profile.md as structural guidance only. Match section count, section ordering tendency, theorem-environment density, caption-length distribution, sentence cadence, math display ratio, citation style.
• Never copy prose, claims, examples, or terminology from anything reachable through the cache. The profile is intentionally aggregate; if you need substance, use the user's own outline.
• Never pass — style-ref (or the cache contents) to reviewer / auditor sub-agents. Cross-model review independence (../../shared-references/reviewer-independence.md) requires reviewers see only the artifact and the user's prompt, not the author's stylistic context.

<!-- DATA_NEEDED --> markers (when GAP_REPORT.md exists)

If /paper-plan ran with — style-ref: it will have emitted GAP_REPORT.md alongside PAPER_PLAN.md. This file lists structural slots (ablation tables, scaling experiments, failure-case analyses, …) the exemplar implies but the user has no evidence to fill.

When GAP_REPORT.md is present and a section slot is classified as status: missing:

1. Do not fabricate numerical results, figure references, or qualitative claims to fill that slot.

2. Emit an HTML-comment placeholder at the exact location the missing content would go:

   <!-- DATA_NEEDED: GAP_S5_ABLATION — ablation table comparing X across the 3 axes implied by exemplar -->
   

3. Slot ID and one-line description come straight from GAP_REPORT.md. Never invent Slot IDs. Never reword the description to be more confident than the report.

4. The marker is intentionally an HTML comment so it is invisible in the rendered PDF but searchable via grep -r "DATA_NEEDED" sec/ for human triage / /experiment-bridge follow-up.

5. For status: partial, write what the user has and emit <!-- DATA_NEEDED: <Slot ID> — <what specifically is short> --> at the gap point in the same paragraph (do not split the section).

Carve-out from "no placeholder" rule. The default /paper-write discipline (no placeholders such as "see supplementary" or "TBD") still applies for everything except GAP_REPORT-listed missing slots. The marker is the principled way to surface genuine evidence deficits without compromising claim integrity.

Templates

Venue-Specific Setup

The skill includes modular paper-package templates under templates/. Select the concrete skeleton based on TARGET_VENUE:

• IEEE_CONF -> templates/ieee_conference.tex
• IEEE_JOURNAL -> templates/ieee_journal.tex
• non-IEEE venues may use the venue's official template, but should still follow the same modular package conventions: thin main.tex, section files, dedicated figure/table assets, and appendix material isolated from the main narrative

ICLR:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{iclr2026_conference,times}
% \iclrfinalcopy  % Uncomment for camera-ready

NeurIPS:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[preprint]{neurips_2025}
% \usepackage[final]{neurips_2025}  % Camera-ready

ICML:

\documentclass[accepted]{icml2025}
% Use [accepted] for camera-ready

IEEE Journal (Transactions, Letters):

\documentclass[journal]{IEEEtran}
\usepackage{cite}  % IEEE uses \cite{}, NOT natbib
% Author block uses \author{Name~\IEEEmembership{Member,~IEEE}}

IEEE Conference (ICC, GLOBECOM, INFOCOM, ICASSP, etc.):

\documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
\usepackage{cite}  % IEEE uses \cite{}, NOT natbib
% Author block uses \IEEEauthorblockN / \IEEEauthorblockA

Project Structure

For new IEEE/Overleaf starts, generate this ICDE_YU_Memory-compatible structure unless the target venue package requires different names:

paper/
  main.tex
  IEEEtran.cls
  IEEE.bib
  Content/
    0.Abstract.tex
    1.Introduction.tex
    2.Methodology.tex
    3.BenchmarkConstruction.tex
    4.Experiment.tex
    5.Discussion.tex
    6.RelatedWork.tex
    7.Conclusion.tex
  Figure/
    figure1.pdf
    figure2.pdf

For non-IEEE or existing pipeline projects, this normalized structure remains acceptable:

paper/
├── main.tex                    # master file (includes sections)
├── iclr2026_conference.sty     # or neurips_2025.sty / icml2025.sty / IEEEtran.cls + IEEEtran.bst
├── math_commands.tex           # shared math macros
├── references.bib              # bibliography (filtered — only cited entries)
├── sections/
│   ├── 0_abstract.tex
│   ├── 1_introduction.tex
│   ├── 2_related_work.tex
│   ├── 3_method.tex            # or preliminaries, setup, etc.
│   ├── 4_experiments.tex
│   ├── 5_conclusion.tex
│   └── A_appendix.tex          # proof details, extra experiments
└── figures/                    # symlink or copy from project figures/

Section files are FLEXIBLE: If the paper plan has 6-8 sections, create corresponding files (e.g., 4_theory.tex, 5_experiments.tex, 6_analysis.tex, 7_conclusion.tex).

For IEEE-oriented modular starts, prefer copying from:

• templates/ieee_conference.tex
• templates/ieee_journal.tex

Treat them as package skeletons, then swap in the target venue's official class/style bundle if submission instructions require a stricter venue package.

Preferred package standard, matching ICDE_YU_Memory quality or better:

• main.tex stays thin and declarative.
• For new IEEE/Overleaf papers, section prose lives under paper/Content/, figures under paper/Figure/, and bibliography in paper/IEEE.bib.
• Preserve paper/sections/, paper/figures/, and references.bib for existing projects and non-IEEE templates that already use them.
• For system/memory papers, allow names like 2.Methodology.tex, 3.BenchmarkConstruction.tex, 4.Experiment.tex, 5.Discussion.tex, 6.RelatedWork.tex, 7.Conclusion.tex.

Workflow

Step 0: Backup and Clean

If paper/ already exists, back up to paper-backup-{timestamp}/ before overwriting. Never silently destroy existing work.

CRITICAL: Clean stale files. When changing section structure (e.g., 5 sections → 7 sections), delete section files that are no longer referenced by main.tex. Stale files (e.g., old 5_conclusion.tex left behind when conclusion moved to 7_conclusion.tex) cause confusion and waste space.

Step 1: Initialize Project

1. Create paper/ directory plus Content/ and Figure/ for new IEEE/Overleaf starts; otherwise follow the existing project convention.
2. Copy the venue template from templates/ (or the target venue's official bundle while preserving the same modular layout) — the template already includes:
   • All standard packages (amsmath, hyperref, cleveref, booktabs, etc.)
   • Theorem environments with \crefname{assumption} fix
   • Anonymous author block
3. Generate math_commands.tex with paper-specific notation
4. Create section files matching PAPER_PLAN structure and the selected layout

Author block (anonymous mode):

\author{Anonymous Authors}

Step 2: Generate math_commands.tex

Create shared math macros based on the paper's notation:

% math_commands.tex — shared notation
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
% Add paper-specific notation here

Step 3: Write Each Section

Compose in the evidence order defined above: Methods → Results in storyboard order → Discussion → Introduction → Abstract/title. Then place completed prose in the final section order specified by PAPER_PLAN.md and main.tex.

For each drafting unit:

1. Read the plan and storyboard — identify the supported claim, primary question, evidence locator, permitted conclusion, and excluded conclusion.
2. Read raw-linked evidence — use NARRATIVE_REPORT.md plus the cited run, table, figure source, or audit record; do not rely on a narrative claim when the raw locator conflicts.
3. Draft content — write complete LaTeX (no fabricated placeholders). Exception: if GAP_REPORT.md exists and the section has slots with status: missing, emit <!-- DATA_NEEDED: <Slot ID> — <description> --> at those points instead of inventing data — see the DATA_NEEDED markers subsection above.
4. Insert figures/tables — use snippets from figures/latex_includes.tex. Captions must state the comparison, n/statistics where applicable, and the conclusion readers may take from the figure.
5. Add citations — for ML conferences (ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR/ACL/AAAI): use \citep{} / \citet{} (natbib). For IEEE venues: use \cite{} (numeric style via cite package). Never mix natbib and cite commands.

When using the ICDE-style layout, translate figure snippets to Figure/ paths inside \includegraphics and write bibliography entries to IEEE.bib.

Before drafting the front matter, re-read the one-sentence contribution from PAPER_PLAN.md. The Abstract and Introduction should make that takeaway obvious before the reader reaches the full method.

Section-Specific Guidelines

§0 Abstract:

• Use the 5-part flow from ../../shared-references/writing-principles.md: what, why hard, how, evidence, strongest result
• Must be self-contained (understandable without reading the paper)
• Start with the paper's specific contribution, not generic field-level background
• Include one concrete quantitative result
• 150-250 words (check venue limit)
• No citations, no undefined acronyms
• No \begin{abstract} — that's in main.tex

§1 Introduction:

• Open with a compelling hook (1-2 sentences, problem motivation)
• State the gap clearly ("However, ...")
• Give a brief approach overview before the reader gets lost in details
• List 2-4 specific, falsifiable contributions as a numbered or bulleted list
• Preview the strongest result early instead of saving it for the experiments section
• End with a brief roadmap ("The rest of this paper is organized as...")
• Include the main result figure if space allows
• Target: 1-1.5 pages
• Methods should begin by page 2-3 at the latest

§2 Related Work:

• Default compact length: write 2-4 tight synthesis paragraphs. In IEEE/Overleaf-style two-column papers, Related Work plus Conclusion should not exceed about 0.8 page unless the venue or user explicitly asks for a longer survey.
• Organize by category using \paragraph{Category Name.}
• Organize methodologically, by assumption class, or by research question; do not write paper-by-paper mini-summaries
• Each category: summarize the line of work and position this paper in the fewest clear sentences.
• Do NOT just list papers — synthesize and compare
• End each paragraph with how this paper relates/differs

For system or benchmark papers, placing Related Work after Experiments is allowed when the technical story reads more cleanly that way.

§3 Method / Preliminaries / Setup:

• Define notation early (reference math_commands.tex)
• Use \begin{definition}, \begin{theorem} environments for formal statements
• For theory papers: include proof sketches of key results in main body, full proofs in appendix
• For theory papers: include a comparison table of prior bounds vs. this paper
• Include algorithm pseudocode if applicable (algorithm2e or algorithmic)
• Target: 1.5-2 pages

For system-, memory-, or query-processing papers, write Methodology with explicit substructure instead of a single undifferentiated block.

搂3.5 Benchmark / Dataset Construction:

• Create a dedicated section when the benchmark, stress test, evaluation split, or representative-selection protocol is part of the contribution.
• Do not bury contribution-bearing benchmark design inside setup paragraphs.

§4 Experiments / Results:

• Start with experimental setup (datasets, baselines, metrics, implementation details)
• Present main results in Claim–Evidence–Figure Storyboard order, then ablations and analysis; structure by research questions (RQ1, RQ2, ...) when possible.
• Every claim from the Introduction must have supporting evidence here.
• For each primary figure/table, write a four-sentence Results paragraph:
  1. state the question; 2. state the comparison or analysis; 3. report the key observation; 4. state only the storyboard's bounded conclusion.
• Results report observations and comparisons. Do not move mechanism explanations, literature comparison, limitations, or causal claims not identified by the storyboard into Results.
• Target: 2.5-3 pages.

Discussion (when planned as a separate section):

• Use a dedicated Discussion section when limitations, trade-offs, or scope boundaries deserve independent treatment.
• Interpret the observed results, compare with prior work, explain supported differences, and state concrete limitations. Do not repeat the Results or add new unreported evidence.

§5 Conclusion:

• Summarize contributions (NOT copy-paste from intro — rephrase)
• Limitations (be honest — reviewers appreciate this)
• Future work (1-2 concrete directions)
• Ethics statement and reproducibility statement (if venue requires)
• Target: 0.25-0.3 pages by default. Keep it as a concise close, not a second discussion section.

Appendix:

• Proof details (full proofs of main-body theorems)
• Additional experiments, ablations
• Implementation details, hyperparameter tables
• Additional visualizations

Step 3.5: Theory Paper Consistency Pass (theory papers only)

Run this pass after drafting all sections and before building the bibliography.

Trigger heuristic: treat the paper as theory-heavy if PAPER_PLAN.md labels it as theory/analysis, or if the drafted sections contain 5 or more formal result environments (\begin{theorem}, \begin{lemma}, \begin{proposition}, \begin{corollary}).

Proof source search: search the workspace for any standalone full-proof source file whose name or contents indicate a canonical proof version (proof, appendix, full, complete, supplement, supplementary). If such a file exists, prompt the user exactly:

Inline full proofs from {file}? [Y/n]

Default to Y.

If the user accepts:

• import the full theorem/lemma statement plus proof block into the appendix source (A_appendix.tex or the appendix file named by the plan)
• use the main-body theorem statement as the canonical public statement; the appendix copy must match it unless the main-body statement is being revised in the same pass
• do not leave placeholders such as "see supplementary proof document" or "proof omitted for brevity"
• preserve theorem labels, equation labels, and proof structure exactly
• keep the main body proof sketches short, but never let the appendix be a sketch-only placeholder when a full proof source exists

If no standalone full-proof source exists:

• use proof sketches only when they are actually written as proof sketches, not placeholders
• do not fabricate an external proof document reference

Restatement audit:

• Compare every theorem/lemma/proposition statement that is restated in the appendix against the main-body version
• Do not diff proof bodies; only audit statements, hypotheses, case splits, quantifiers, domains, notation, variable names, and terminology for defined objects
• Treat stationary vs terminal, changed assumption names, or missing case splits as mismatches unless explicitly documented
• If the appendix needs different wording, add an explicit notation bridge instead of silently renaming concepts
• Resolve all mismatches before Step 4

Empirical motivation: in a real theory-paper run, the default behavior generated "see supplementary proof document" placeholders in the appendix. The author had to manually pull hundreds of lines of full proofs from a standalone proofs file (e.g. proof_full.tex). Without this pass, theory papers ship with sketch-only appendices that fail at theory venues.

Step 4: Build Bibliography

CRITICAL: Only include entries that are actually cited in the paper.

1. Scan all citation references in the drafted sections (\citep{}/\citet{} for ML conferences, \cite{} for IEEE venues)
2. Build a citation key list
3. For each citation key:
   • Check existing .bib files in the project/narrative docs
   • If not found and DBLP_BIBTEX = true, use the verified fetch chain below
   • If only an arXiv clue is available, resolve it to DBLP, DOI/CrossRef, Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, ACL Anthology, IEEE, ACM, or the official venue page before adding it to the final .bib
   • If not found and DBLP_BIBTEX = false, search only to identify the formal publication record; do not add arXiv BibTeX unless the user explicitly accepts an unpublished-preprint exception
   • NEVER fabricate BibTeX entries — mark unknown ones with [VERIFY] comment
4. Write references.bib containing ONLY cited entries (no bloat)

Verified BibTeX Fetch (when DBLP_BIBTEX = true)

Three-step fallback chain — zero install, zero auth, all real BibTeX:

Step A: DBLP (best quality — full venue, pages, editors)

# 1. Search by title + first author
curl -s "https://dblp.org/search/publ/api?q=TITLE+AUTHOR&format=json&h=3"
# 2. Extract DBLP key from result (e.g., conf/nips/VaswaniSPUJGKP17)
# 3. Fetch real BibTeX
curl -s "https://dblp.org/rec/{key}.bib"

Step B: CrossRef DOI (fallback — published DOI preferred)

# If paper has a DOI, prefer the conference/journal DOI over an arXiv DOI.
curl -sLH "Accept: application/x-bibtex" "https://doi.org/{doi}"

Step C: Mark [VERIFY] (last resort) If DBLP, CrossRef, and other formal metadata sources return nothing, mark the entry with % [VERIFY] comment. Do NOT fabricate and do NOT silently fall back to arXiv in the final bibliography.

Why this matters: LLM-generated BibTeX frequently hallucinates venue names, page numbers, or even co-authors. DBLP and CrossRef return publisher-verified metadata. Upstream skills (/research-lit, /novelty-check) may mention papers from LLM memory — this fetch chain is the gate that prevents hallucinated citations from entering the final .bib.

If the DBLP/CrossRef flow is not enough, load ../../shared-references/citation-discipline.md for stricter fallback rules before adding placeholders.

Automated bib cleaning — use this Python pattern to extract only cited entries:

import re
# 1. Grep all \citep{...}, \citet{...}, and \cite{...} from all .tex files
# 2. Extract unique keys (handle multi-cite like \citep{a,b,c} or \cite{a,b,c})
# 3. Parse the full .bib file, keep only entries whose key is in the cited set
# 4. Write the filtered bib

This prevents bib bloat (e.g., 948 lines → 215 lines in testing).

Enforced Bib Hygiene Validation — run immediately after the filtered references.bib is written.

python3 - <<'PY'
import io, json, re, sys, urllib.parse, urllib.request
from pathlib import Path

try:
    import bibtexparser
except ImportError:
    sys.exit("Missing dependency: pip install bibtexparser")

ROOT = Path("paper")
tex_paths = [ROOT / "main.tex", *sorted((ROOT / "sections").glob("*.tex"))]
tex = "\n".join(p.read_text(errors="ignore") for p in tex_paths if p.exists())

cited = set()
for m in re.finditer(r'\\cite[a-zA-Z]*\{([^}]*)\}', tex):
    cited.update(k.strip() for k in m.group(1).split(',') if k.strip())

with (ROOT / "references.bib").open() as fh:
    bib = bibtexparser.load(fh)

entries = {e["ID"]: e for e in bib.entries}
dead = sorted(set(entries) - cited)
if dead:
    print("DEAD ENTRIES:")
    for key in dead:
        print("  ", key)

def norm(s):
    return re.sub(r'[^a-z0-9]+', ' ', (s or '').lower()).strip()

def dblp_hits(title):
    q = urllib.parse.quote(title)
    url = f"https://dblp.org/search/publ/api?q={q}&format=json&h=3"
    with urllib.request.urlopen(url, timeout=20) as r:
        data = json.load(r)
    return [h.get("info", {}) for h in data.get("result", {}).get("hits", {}).get("hit", [])]

def crossref_entry(doi):
    req = urllib.request.Request(f"https://doi.org/{doi}", headers={"Accept": "application/x-bibtex"})
    with urllib.request.urlopen(req, timeout=20) as r:
        parsed = bibtexparser.loads(r.read().decode("utf-8", "ignore"))
    return parsed.entries[0] if parsed.entries else {}

for key in sorted(cited & set(entries)):
    e = entries[key]
    title = e.get("title", "").strip("{}")
    hits = dblp_hits(title) if title else []
    hit = hits[0] if hits else None
    source = "DBLP"
    if hit is None and e.get("doi"):
        try:
            hit = crossref_entry(e["doi"])
            source = "CrossRef"
        except Exception:
            hit = None
    if hit is None:
        print(f"VERIFY {key}: no DBLP/CrossRef hit")
        continue

    issues = []
    year_a = str(e.get("year", "")).strip()
    year_b = str(hit.get("year", "")).strip()
    if year_a and year_b and year_a != year_b:
        issues.append(f"year {year_a} != {year_b}")

    venue_a = e.get("journal") or e.get("booktitle") or ""
    venue_b = hit.get("journal") or hit.get("booktitle") or hit.get("venue") or ""
    if norm(venue_a) and norm(venue_b) and norm(venue_a) != norm(venue_b):
        issues.append(f"venue {venue_a} != {venue_b}")

    authors_a = [norm(a) for a in re.split(r'\s+and\s+', e.get("author", "")) if a.strip()]
    authors_b = [norm(a) for a in re.split(r'\s+and\s+', hit.get("author", "")) if a.strip()]
    if authors_a and authors_b and authors_a[:2] != authors_b[:2]:
        issues.append("author list differs")

    if issues:
        print(f"MISMATCH {key} ({source}): " + "; ".join(issues))
PY

If DEAD ENTRIES is printed, remove those keys from references.bib before continuing. If VERIFY or MISMATCH is printed, do not invent metadata:

• prefer DBLP when it returns a clear hit
• if DBLP misses and a DOI is available, fall back to CrossRef
• if both disagree or still cannot verify, keep the entry only with a % [VERIFY] marker
• uncited entries must be deleted, not left behind as dead bibliography bloat

Citation reachability rule: an entry is dead if its key does not appear in any \cite...{} command in paper/main.tex or any paper/sections/*.tex file.

Empirical motivation: in a real submission run, several dead bib entries sat in references.bib for many improvement rounds, and at least one entry had a key/year mismatch. Neither was flagged by the existing automated cleaning.

Citation verification rules (from claude-scholar + Imbad0202):

1. Every BibTeX entry must have: author, title, year, venue/journal
2. Use published venue versions over arXiv preprints by default
3. Use consistent key format: {firstauthor}{year}{keyword} (e.g., ho2020denoising)
4. Double-check year and venue for every entry
5. Remove duplicate entries (same paper with different keys)
6. Treat arXiv entries as final-bibliography blockers unless explicitly accepted as unpublished-preprint exceptions.

Step 5: Evidence and Scientific Writing Quality Pass

Before language polish, run an evidence-story audit:

• Confirm the title, abstract, Results, and Discussion state the same bounded main finding; flag any stronger wording outside the storyboard.
• Check every primary figure/table reference, raw-result locator, version/date, sample size or definition of n, unit, group name, and statistic for consistency across prose, captions, tables, and source outputs.
• Confirm captions include the comparison and statistical details needed to interpret the claim, and that negative or contradictory results are visible or explicitly bounded rather than silently omitted.
• Check that methods identify sources/samples, key parameters, and an analysis method appropriate to the data type.
• Verify that citations support the claims they accompany, raw data remain traceable, and unresolved user decisions are listed rather than buried in prose.

Then run six sequential writing-quality passes. Based on Sainani's "Writing in the Sciences" methodology: every word must earn its place.

Pass 1: Clutter Extraction — Strip sentences to cleanest components.

Cluttered phrase	Replace with
Due to the fact that	Because
In order to	To
A number of	Several
It is worth noting that	(delete — just state the point)
It is important to note that	(delete)
At the present time	Now
On the basis of	Based on
In light of the fact that	Because
Have an effect on	Affect
Give rise to	Cause

Also remove redundancies: "completely eliminate" → "eliminate", "future plans" → "plans", "unexpected surprise" → "surprise".

Remove AI-isms: delve, pivotal, landscape, tapestry, underscore, noteworthy, intriguingly.

Pass 2: Active Voice and Verb Vitality — Identify who did what.

• Spot passive: "to-be" verb + past participle ("was observed", "were analyzed")
• Convert: find the actor, reconstruct as Subject–Verb–Object
• Resurrect smothered verbs (nominalizations):
  • "We made an investigation" → "We investigated"
  • "Failure of the system occurs" → "The system fails"
  • "Provides a description of" → "Describes"

Passive voice IS acceptable for: established facts, methods where agent is irrelevant, or when required by venue style.

Pass 3: Sentence Architecture — Structure and flow.

• Flag sentences > 40 words for splitting
• Ensure subject and verb are close together (no long parenthetical insertions between them)
• Put familiar context first, new information later
• Place the most important point near the end of the sentence
• Let each paragraph do one job
• Don't start consecutive sentences with "This" or "We"
• Check paragraph transitions — each paragraph's first sentence should connect to the previous

Pass 4: Keyword Consistency — The Banana Rule.

Do not call a "banana" an "elongated yellow fruit" to avoid repetition. If the Methods say "obese group," the Results must not switch to "heavier group." Synonym variation for technical terms forces the reader to wonder whether a new category has been introduced.

• Extract all key terms from Method section (group names, variable names, technique names, abbreviations)
• Verify exact same terms appear in Results, Discussion, Tables, Figure captions
• Flag every synonym substitution for a defined term
• Acronym austerity: flag non-standard acronyms created only for convenience; verify every acronym is defined at first use

Pass 5: Numerical and Citation Integrity

• Does sample size (N) in Abstract match Table 1?
• Do percentages in Results match raw numbers in Tables?
• Are significant figures consistent and appropriate?
• Do Figure graphics match Table values?
• Flag statistics cited only through secondary sources (reviews, textbooks) — recommend verifying primary source

Pass 6: Anti-Defensive Writing

• Lead with the claim, result, or positive scope, not with what the paper does not claim, prove, cover, or attempt.
• Delete disclaimers that do not add evidence, scope, logic, conceptual precision, or necessary reader guidance.
• Keep necessary limitations once, calmly, where they belong: Methods, Discussion, Limitations, or the exact sentence whose interpretation depends on the limit.
• Convert negative scope into positive scope: The analysis focuses on X instead of We do not claim to cover Y.
• Replace vague hedges (may, could, potentially) with precise evidence strength and scope; when uncertainty is real, name its source.
• Remove reflexive defense patterns unless the contrast is part of the argument: to be clear, it is worth noting, not X but Y, this should not be taken to mean, repeated however/although caveat openings.

Step 6: Cross-Review with REVIEWER_MODEL

Send the complete draft to GPT-5.4 xhigh:

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-5.5
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    Review this [VENUE] paper draft (main body, excluding appendix).

    Focus on:
    1. Does each claim from the intro have supporting evidence?
    2. Is the writing clear, concise, and free of AI-isms?
    3. Any logical gaps or unclear explanations?
    4. Does it fit within [MAX_PAGES] pages (to end of Conclusion)?
    5. Is related work concise but sufficient, and do Related Work plus
       Conclusion stay within about 0.8 page for IEEE/Overleaf-style papers?
    6. For theory papers: are proof sketches adequate?
    7. Are figures/tables clearly described and properly referenced?
    8. Are there any solid-block paragraphs that nearly fill a two-column
       column and should be split?
    9. Does any high-impact prose sound defensive: repeated caveats, "we do
       not claim" framing, vague hedges, or limitation-first contribution
       paragraphs?
    10. Would a skim reader understand the contribution from the title, abstract, introduction, and Figure 1?

    For each issue, specify: severity (CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR), location, and fix.

    [paste full draft text]

Apply CRITICAL and MAJOR fixes. Document MINOR issues for the user.

Step 7: Reverse Outline Test (from Research-Paper-Writing-Skills)

After drafting all sections:

1. Extract topic sentences — pull the first sentence of every paragraph
2. Read them in sequence — they should form a coherent narrative on their own
3. Check claim coverage — every claim from the Claims-Evidence Matrix must appear
4. Check evidence mapping — every experiment/figure must support a stated claim
5. Fix gaps — if a topic sentence doesn't advance the story, rewrite the paragraph

Step 8: Final Checks

Before declaring done:

• All \ref{} and \label{} match (no undefined references)
• All citation commands (\citep{}/\citet{} for ML conferences, \cite{} for IEEE) have corresponding BibTeX entries
• No author information in anonymous mode
• Figure/table numbering is correct
• Page count within MAX_PAGES (main body to Conclusion end)
• No TODO/FIXME/XXX markers left in the text
• No [VERIFY] markers left unchecked
• Abstract is self-contained (understandable without reading the paper)
• Title is specific and informative (not generic)
• Related Work + Conclusion are compact by default (about 0.8 page total for IEEE/Overleaf-style two-column papers unless explicitly overridden)
• No paragraph is a solid block that nearly fills a whole two-column column
• No unnecessary defensive writing remains in high-impact prose; necessary limitations are stated once in the right section
• references.bib contains ONLY cited entries (no bloat)
• No arXiv entries remain in the final .bib unless explicitly accepted as unpublished-preprint exceptions
• No stale section files — every .tex in sections/ is \inputed by main.tex
• Section files match main.tex — file numbering and \input paths are consistent
• Venue-specific required sections/checklists satisfied (read ../../shared-references/venue-checklists.md if needed)
• A skim reader can recover the main claim from the title, abstract, introduction, and Figure 1/captions
• Title, abstract, Results, and Discussion agree on the same bounded main finding
• Every primary figure/table answers one storyboard question and is not used for an excluded conclusion
• Sample sizes/n, units, group names, captions, and statistics are consistent with raw-linked evidence
• Negative or contradictory results are visible or explicitly scoped; raw data and result versions are traceable
• User-facing interpretation or scope decisions remain listed in PAPER_PLAN.md

Key Rules

• Large file handling: If the Write tool fails due to file size, immediately retry using Bash (cat << 'EOF' > file) to write in chunks. Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.
• Do NOT generate author names, emails, or affiliations — use anonymous block or placeholder
• Write complete sections, not outlines — the output should be compilable LaTeX
• One file per section — modular structure for easy editing
• Every claim must cite evidence — cross-reference the Claims-Evidence Matrix
• Compile-ready — the output should compile with latexmk without errors (modulo missing figures)
• No over-claiming — use hedging language ("suggests", "indicates") for weak evidence
• Venue style matters — ML conferences (ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML) use natbib (\citep/\citet); IEEE venues use cite package (\cite{}, numeric). Never mix.
• Page limit rules differ by venue — ML conferences: main body to Conclusion, references/appendix NOT counted. IEEE: references ARE counted toward the page limit.
• Clean bib — references.bib must only contain entries that are actually \cited
• Published-only bibliography by default — resolve arXiv clues to formal venue records and block final bibliography use of arXiv unless the user explicitly accepts an unpublished-preprint exception.
• Section count is flexible — match PAPER_PLAN structure, don't force into 5 sections
• Backup before overwrite — never destroy existing paper/ directory without backing up
• Front-load the contribution — do not hide the payoff until the experiments or appendix
• Anti-defensive prose — state what the paper shows and where it applies; do not pad abstracts, introductions, contributions, captions, or conclusions with caveats aimed only at hypothetical objections.

Writing Quality Reference

• ../../shared-references/writing-principles.md — story framing, abstract/introduction patterns, sentence-level clarity, reviewer reading order
• ../../shared-references/venue-checklists.md — ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/IEEE submission requirements to check before declaring done
• ../../shared-references/citation-discipline.md — stricter fallback for ambiguous citations

Keep using the reverse-outline test and anti-inflation polish from the main workflow above; the shared references are there to improve quality without adding a new phase.

Acknowledgements

Writing methodology adapted from Research-Paper-Writing-Skills (CCF award-winning methodology). Citation verification from claude-scholar and Imbad0202/academic-research-skills. This hybrid pack's writing-guidance overlay is adapted from Orchestra Research's paper-writing materials.