intro-drafter

name	intro-drafter
description	Drafts the Introduction prose for a technical paper, guided internally by a six-paragraph flowchart: background and running example, existing limitations, problem essence and goal, key challenges, solution overview, contributions. Positions the paper as Technique or New Problem/Setting, aligns contributions with challenges, and weaves verified citations. Outputs flowing prose by default, or an outline on request. Use when the user asks to draft, outline, or restructure an Introduction.
license	CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Introduction Drafter

Overview

The Introduction is the compressed version of the entire paper. In one and a half to two pages it must state the research object, why the problem matters, why existing work falls short, what the paper contributes, and how the contributions map to sections. Reviewers decide whether to keep reading by the end of the Introduction, so the logical throughline has to be airtight.

This skill is a prose generator, not an outline generator. It takes a small set of inputs (research area, limitations, key idea, challenges, solution overview, optional references) and produces six paragraphs of real Introduction prose. The six-paragraph flowchart works underneath as an internal scaffold and never appears in the output.

The delivered text must read as if a researcher wrote it: flowing paragraphs, no inline tags, no "Paragraph 1: Background" headings, no severity tables, no consistency reports. Just the Introduction.

An explicit outline is still available: see "Outline mode" below.

Evidence rules (inherited)

This skill follows the shared evidence discipline: every factual claim traces to the user's materials, this session's verified retrieval, or field common knowledge; model memory is never a source; delivered prose carries zero bracketed placeholder tags; details the user did not provide (specific scenarios, mechanisms, magnitudes, procedures, identifiers) are omitted, not invented.

See: references/evidence-discipline.md and references/prose-delivery.md (shared with paper-writer).

When to use this skill

• "Write the Introduction." "Draft the Intro from this idea."
• The user has a paragraph of research thinking and wants finished prose, not bullets.
• The user has Goal and Key Idea settled but no Introduction text yet.
• The user pastes references and asks for them woven into the Introduction.

When NOT to use this skill

• Benchmark papers: benchmark-paper-template (the flowchart differs).
• Any non-Introduction section: paper-writer.
• Prose exists and needs polishing: paper-polish.
• The user wants a submission-readiness verdict: pre-submission-reviewer.

Pre-check: STEM or not

The six-paragraph model (background, limitations, goal, challenges, solution, contributions) is built for STEM and technical papers. If the research is non-STEM by method (humanities, social science, economics, law), do not force it through this scaffold; hand the task to paper-writer, whose CER planning covers those paradigms, while all evidence rules still apply. The test is the research method: experiments, benchmarks, models, or algorithms come here; everything else routes to paper-writer.

Core procedure (STEM)

Internal thinking first, prose second. None of the intermediate thinking is printed.

Step 1: paper-type positioning (internal)

See: references/paper-types.md for the Technique versus New Problem/Setting distinction and worked examples from Alpha-SQL, AFlow, and LEAD.

• Technique paper: the contribution is a new method for an existing problem; the narrative axis is the key idea; Paragraph 3 is a short bridge.
• New Problem/Setting paper: the contribution is the problem formulation itself; Paragraph 3 is load-bearing.

Step 2: plan the six paragraphs (internal)

See: references/flowchart.md for each paragraph's purpose, writing points, and common failures.

For each paragraph, settle: its purpose; two to four concrete writing points drawn from the user's inputs; and its gaps (what the inputs do not yet cover). Gaps are reported to the user after the prose, never inside it.

1. Background and motivation; running example; why the problem matters.
2. Limitations of existing work (at most three).
3. Problem essence and goal; hard constraints explicit.
4. Key challenges (at most three).
5. Solution overview; one module per challenge.
6. Contributions (three or four, each mapping to a section).

Step 3: the running example (internal)

See: references/running-example.md for the design principles and patterns.

If the user has not provided a running example, do not fabricate one. The reference file's first principle is that the example is real, drawn from real data or a real deployment. Write the background paragraph from the user's own abstract problem description, and in the closing note ask: "a concrete running example would make Paragraph 1 stronger; can you share a real case from your experiments or deployment?"

Step 4: alignment checks (internal, before writing)

See: references/contribution-patterns.md for strong versus weak contribution patterns.

Verify silently: the running example from Paragraph 1 reappears in Paragraph 5 or 6; every challenge answers a limitation or a hard constraint; the goal aligns with contribution 1; challenges map one-to-one to modules; contributions number three or four, each tied to a section, none of them vague ("extensive experiments" is not a contribution).

A failed check is fixed in the plan before any prose is written. Never write around a broken chain.

Step 5: write the prose

Six flowing paragraphs, under these disciplines:

• No paragraph labels in the output. Natural transitions carry the structure ("Despite this progress, ...", "In this work, we ...", "We summarise our contributions as follows.").
• Each paragraph is one block, roughly 100-250 words, weighted by the paper type (see references/paper-types.md).
• Citations: numeric citation-sequence, [1], [2], ... by first appearance. A full six-paragraph Introduction typically weaves 15-25 references: 3-5 in the background, 5-8 in the limitations, 2-4 in each of paragraphs three to five, 0-2 in the contributions. A thin bibliography reads as an opinion piece. Search before writing: three to five retrieval rounds under different keywords build the pool, and the argument is organized around retrieved, verified works. A claim whose source cannot be found is rewritten to drop the need, never tagged. The prose is followed by a References list matching the marks bidirectionally. At three or more citations, run the independent citation-verification ladder defined in paper-writer (a fresh-context check of every entry when the environment allows it, with honest degradation and disclosure otherwise).
• Numbers and claims: no invented percentages, speedups, or benchmark numbers. A specific gain appears only if the user reported it; otherwise "improves over prior baselines", with no annotation attached.
• Tense: past for prior work and observations; present or future for the paper's own unvalidated claims ("this paper proposes"). Without reported results, never "we achieved" or "we demonstrated".
• Tone pass: before finalising, strip AI-tone signals and unsupported superlatives, and match verbs to evidence strength (see the "Tone references" section below for where the shared wordlists live).

Step 6: a short closing note (optional, three lines at most)

After the prose (and References), at most a short plain-language note: gaps the user should fill, a paragraph written tentatively for lack of input, or the running-example request from Step 3. No tables, no lists, no severity labels. Nothing useful to say means no note at all.

What the user receives

• Six paragraphs of Introduction prose separated by blank lines, citations as [1], [2], ...
• A References list right after the prose, when citations are present.
• Optionally, one one-to-three-line plain note.

Nothing else. The full prohibition list (headings, gate results, severity summaries, placeholder tags, process preambles) lives in references/prose-delivery.md and is binding.

Outline mode (on explicit request)

When the user explicitly asks for an outline instead of prose ("just the outline", "give me the skeleton first"), return the classic structure instead: the type positioning (type, rationale, implication), then for each of the six paragraphs its purpose, writing points, and gaps with severity, then the five consistency checks (running-example loop, limitations-to-challenges, goal-to-contribution-1, challenge-to-module mapping, contribution-to-section mapping). The same internal planning, externalized once, on request.

Tone references

The shared style references live with their canonical copies in paper-polish (ai-tone-guardrails, academic-phrasebank, section-conventions) and apply to this skill's prose pass; consult them through that skill's references when finer wording support is needed.

Cross-skill handoffs

• Introduction done, rest of the paper wanted: paper-writer.
• Prose in place but stiff: paper-polish.
• Doubts that the idea itself can carry a top-venue paper: do not write that into the Introduction; put one line in the closing note and point to idea-evaluator.

Output language

Follow an explicit language request first; a named Chinese journal or Chinese thesis means Chinese prose; otherwise default to English. Never infer the output language from the language of the user's message.