draft-paper

name	draft-paper
description	Draft a research paper skeleton from a vitrine study's provenance trail — decisions, annotations, scripts, tables, and plots become an IMRAD manuscript with auto-generated Methods and supplementary appendices.
tier	community
category	system

Draft Research Paper

Assemble a paper skeleton from a vitrine study's full provenance trail. The output is an IMRAD manuscript where Methods are auto-generated from the decision trail and Results reference actual study outputs. Sections requiring domain expertise are marked with [PLACEHOLDER] tags.

When to Use This Skill

• Researcher wants to turn a completed study into a manuscript draft
• Researcher wants a structured starting point for a journal submission
• Researcher wants to document the study in publication-ready format

Procedure

Step 1: Parse Researcher Instructions

The additional_prompt (in the dispatch context below) may contain:

• Venue: journal name or conference (affects length, style, formatting)
• Paper type: full paper, brief communication, methods paper, letter
• Framing: specific angle or narrative emphasis
• Word limit: target length constraint

If no venue is specified, default to a standard full-length clinical research paper (~3500 words body).

Step 2: Gather Context

Read the study context JSON provided below. Extract:

• cards — all cards with card_id, title, type, preview
• decisions_made — all decisions with outcomes, rationale, timestamps
• pending_responses — any unresolved blocking cards (note these in the paper)

Read these files from the output directory (copies are available in the workspace):

• PROTOCOL.md — study protocol (research question, design, analysis plan)
• RESULTS.md — study results and conclusions
• REPORT.md — compiled research report (if available)
• All .py files in scripts/ — read each to understand the analysis pipeline
• List all files in plots/ — these become figures

Step 3: Write paper.md

Create paper.md in the workspace with this IMRAD structure:

# <Title derived from study description>

**Authors:** [PLACEHOLDER: author names and affiliations]

## Abstract

[Generate from actual results. Include: background (1-2 sentences), objective,
methods summary, key results with real numbers from the study, conclusion.
Target 250 words.]

## 1. Introduction

[PLACEHOLDER: opening paragraph — clinical significance and epidemiology]

[Study motivation — derive from study description and PROTOCOL.md. What gap
does this study address?]

[PLACEHOLDER: literature review — 2-3 paragraphs on prior work, cite with [TO CITE]]

[Study objective — clearly state the research question from the protocol]

## 2. Methods

### 2.1 Study Design and Setting

[Auto-generate from protocol and decision trail: study type (retrospective
cohort, case-control, etc.), database used, time period, IRB/ethics statement]

### 2.2 Study Population

[Auto-generate from cohort definition script and decisions: inclusion criteria,
exclusion criteria, sample size. Reference each decision that shaped the cohort.]

### 2.3 Variables

[Auto-generate from scripts and decisions: primary outcome, exposures,
covariates. Each variable definition should trace to a specific script or
decision card.]

### 2.4 Statistical Analysis

[Auto-generate from analysis scripts: describe each analytical step in the
order the scripts were executed. Reference the actual methods used in code.]

### 2.5 Sensitivity Analyses

[If any scripts or decisions relate to sensitivity/robustness checks, describe
them here. Otherwise: "No pre-specified sensitivity analyses were conducted."]

## 3. Results

### 3.1 Study Population

[Auto-generate from cohort table/script outputs: enrollment flow, final sample
size, baseline characteristics summary with actual numbers.]

### 3.2 Primary Outcome

[Auto-generate from results cards and RESULTS.md: state the primary finding
with actual numbers, confidence intervals, p-values as available.]

### 3.3 Secondary Outcomes

[Auto-generate from additional result cards. If none, omit this section.]

**Tables and Figures:**
- Reference each TABLE card as "Table N" and each plot as "Figure N"
 Include actual numbers from table previews
 For plots, describe what they show and reference 



[Key findings — auto-generate 1 paragraph summarizing main results]

[PLACEHOLDER: comparison with prior literature — 2-3 paragraphs]

[PLACEHOLDER: potential mechanisms — 1-2 paragraphs]



[Auto-generate strengths from: dataset size, validated scores used, decisions
made. Auto-generate limitations from: retrospective design, single-center,
missing data, any caveats noted in annotations.]



[Auto-generate from RESULTS.md conclusions or final result cards]



See  for citation entries. [TO CITE] markers in text indicate
where citations should be inserted.

---



| # | Decision | Choice | Rationale | Timestamp |
|---|----------|--------|-----------|-----------|
[Auto-generate from decisionsscript

Step 4: Write Supporting Files

abstract.md — The abstract section extracted as a standalone file (for submission systems that require it separately).

references.bib — BibTeX entries for:

• The dataset (MIMIC-IV, eICU, or custom dataset — use the canonical citation)
• Any scoring systems used (SOFA, APACHE, SAPS, KDIGO, etc.)
• M4 software citation
• Add % [TO CITE] comment entries as placeholders for literature references

build.sh — Shell script for converting paper.md to publication formats:

#!/bin/bash
# Build paper from markdown to PDF/Word/LaTeX
# Requires: pandoc, a LaTeX distribution (for PDF)

# PDF (via LaTeX)
pandoc paper.md -o paper.pdf --pdf-engine=xelatex --citeproc --bibliography=references.bib

# Word (for journal submission)
pandoc paper.md -o paper.docx --citeproc --bibliography=references.bib

# LaTeX (for manual editing)
pandoc paper.md -o paper.tex --citeproc --bibliography=references.bib

README.md — Next steps document:

# Paper Draft — <Study Title>

## Status
Draft generated from vitrine study `<study-label>`.

## Placeholder Inventory
- [ ] Author names and affiliations
- [ ] Introduction: clinical significance paragraphs
- [ ] Introduction: literature review (N [TO CITE] markers)
- [ ] Discussion: comparison with prior literature
- [ ] Discussion: potential mechanisms
- [ ] All [TO CITE] markers replaced with real citations
- [ ] References.bib completed with literature entries

## Files
- `paper.md` — main manuscript
- `abstract.md` — standalone abstract
- `references.bib` — bibliography (dataset + scoring citations included)
- `figures/` — figures copied from study plots
- `build.sh` — pandoc build script (PDF/Word/LaTeX)

## Building
```bash
chmod +x build.sh && ./build.sh

### Step 5: Assemble Figures

Copy plot files into a `figures/` directory:
```bash
mkdir -p figures
cp plots/*.png figures/ 2>/dev/null || true
cp plots/*.svg figures/ 2>/dev/null || true

Step 6: Stream Progress

Output progress to stdout as markdown (standard dispatch behavior). Structure output with clear headings so the researcher sees progress in the agent card:

## Gathering study context...
[summary of what was found]

## Writing Methods section...
[preview of auto-generated methods]

## Writing Results section...
[preview of key findings]

## Paper draft complete

**Files created:**
- paper.md (N words)
- abstract.md
- references.bib (N entries)
- figures/ (N files)
- build.sh
- README.md

**Placeholder inventory:**
- N [PLACEHOLDER] sections requiring human input
- N [TO CITE] markers requiring citations

**Next steps:**
1. Review paper.md and fill [PLACEHOLDER] sections
2. Complete references.bib with literature citations
3. Run `build.sh` to generate PDF/Word output

Critical Rules

1. Real numbers only. Every statistic in the paper must come from actual study outputs (table previews, RESULTS.md, script outputs). Never fabricate numbers.

2. [PLACEHOLDER] for unknowns. Anything requiring domain expertise (literature review, mechanism discussion, clinical significance) gets a [PLACEHOLDER: reason] tag. The researcher fills these in.

3. [TO CITE] for references. Every claim that needs a citation gets [TO CITE]. The references.bib file has stubs for these.

4. Decision trail IS the Methods. Every confirm() or ask() decision becomes a justified methods choice. This is the key differentiator — no other tool can auto-generate Methods from structured decision provenance.

5. Scripts ARE the analysis. The appendix includes full script source. Methods section describes what scripts do in prose.

6. Venue adaptation. Brief communications: shorter intro/discussion, tighter abstract. Methods papers: expanded methods, reproducibility emphasis. Letters: minimal background, focus on novel finding.

7. Workspace is a copy. The output directory contents are copies — you can freely read them. Write new files (paper.md, abstract.md, etc.) alongside the copies. Do not modify the copied study files.

8. Supplementary appendices. The decision log, full scripts, annotations, and data provenance appendices are a differentiator. They align with STROBE/CONSORT transparency requirements. Always include them.