paper-write

name	paper-write
description	Create an evidence-bounded academic LaTeX manuscript from a research brief or an existing ResearchOS outline. Use for Chinese or English paper drafting when the user needs section-level prose, provenance-aware citations, mechanical manuscript audits, and a resumable workspace workflow.
tools	["read_file","write_file","list_files","build_manuscript_resource_index","plan_manuscript_sections","plan_manuscript_evidence","build_manuscript_registries","build_alignment_matrix","initialize_manuscript_state","build_section_evidence_supplement","update_manuscript_section_state","assemble_manuscript","audit_manuscript_claims","audit_writing_craft","audit_paper_claims","finish_task"]
strict_tools	true
model_tier	standard
temperature	0.2
allowed_read_prefixes	["user_inputs/paper-write/","drafts/","literature/","ideation/","experiments/","figures/","_runtime/skill_sessions/"]
allowed_write_prefixes	["drafts/"]
outputs_expected	{"manuscript":"drafts/paper.tex","writing_storyline":"drafts/writing_storyline.md","manuscript_audit":"drafts/manuscript_audit.md","craft_audit":"drafts/craft_audit.md","summary":"drafts/paper_write_summary.md"}
interaction	{"mode":"guided","language":"zh-CN","summary":"从研究简介或已有大纲生成可审计的论文初稿；不会编造实验结果、参考文献或作者信息。","request_required":true,"request_prompt":"请说明论文类型、目标语言/期刊会议、希望完成的范围，以及是否只起草某些章节。","example_request":"请以英文起草一篇 systems research article，目标为 NeurIPS 风格，先完成完整初稿。","required_inputs":[{"id":"research_brief","label":"研究简介或已有论文大纲","description":"必须说明问题、方法设想、可用证据、目标读者及目标语言。已有完整流水线可直接使用 drafts/outline.md。","paths":"[Truncated]","extensions":"[Truncated]","min_bytes":80,"example":"user_inputs/paper-write/brief.md"}],"optional_inputs":[{"id":"bibliography","label":"已核验的参考文献库","description":"可选；只允许使用其中存在且可追溯的 BibTeX key。未提供时不得虚构引用。","paths":"[Truncated]","extensions":"[Truncated]","min_bytes":40,"example":"literature/related_work.bib"},{"id":"evidence_pack","label":"实验或论证证据包","description":"可选；提供后才可写带具体数值的结果和强结论。没有证据时必须保留为研究计划或限制。","paths":"[Truncated]","extensions":"[Truncated]","min_bytes":40,"example":"drafts/experiment_evidence_pack.json"},{"id":"writing_contract","label":"写作风格与论证主线","description":"可选；项目 workspace 会优先读取已确认的 venue profile 和 storyline。独立运行时若缺失，Skill 会生成明确的补充请求后再继续。","paths":"[Truncated]","extensions":"[Truncated]","min_bytes":20,"example":"drafts/writing_style.json"}],"outputs":[{"id":"manuscript","label":"论文 LaTeX 初稿","path":"drafts/paper.tex","description":"由各章节草稿机械组装的完整论文；不包含虚构的结果或文献。"},{"id":"writing_storyline","label":"Venue-aware 论证主线","path":"drafts/writing_storyline.md","description":"问题、rationale/技术根因、洞见、设计、证据、替代解释与边界的可追溯写作合同。"},{"id":"manuscript_audit","label":"稿件声明审计","path":"drafts/manuscript_audit.md","description":"引用、数值、图表和章节完整性的机械检查结果。"},{"id":"craft_audit","label":"写作质量审计","path":"drafts/craft_audit.md","description":"文风、限制、证据与论证对齐问题的检查结果。"},{"id":"summary","label":"写作会话总结","path":"drafts/paper_write_summary.md","description":"已使用输入、完成章节、未解决证据缺口和下一步。"}]}

Evidence-Bounded Paper Drafting

Use the verified session inputs and user_inputs/paper-write/_intake.md before writing. The user request chooses scope and language; it never authorizes invented evidence. In a project workspace, inspect selected artifacts semantically before trusting them. If the target venue/language, a key rationale, an evidence source, a citation, or a result is insufficient, write user_inputs/paper-write/_followup_request.md with the exact gap, why it affects the paper, and the answer/file requested; then call ask_human and wait. Do not draft a final deliverable around a guessed fact.

Publication Prose and Citation Preferences

Treat the following as editorial writing preferences. Factual accuracy, verified evidence, and an explicit venue template take precedence where necessary.

• Write in the clean, accurate, and economical style expected of strong UTD/FT50/CCF-A research. Avoid empty importance claims, stock language, repeated statements, and artificial transitions that add no information.
• Ordinary body prose must not depend on dashes, colons, or label-style sentences such as Problem:, Gap:, Insight:, or Implication:. Use full sentences to explain causal logic, comparison, qualification, and consequence. Definitions, equations, tables, contribution lists, and venue templates may use limited punctuation when it improves clarity.
• Do not make the argument feel fragmented by chaining parallel short sentences. Give each paragraph a single function and move from its claim through mechanism, evidence, boundary, or implication in a natural order. New terms, citations, results, and practical implications require a bridge from the preceding discussion.
• Keep the structure compact. Do not introduce small subsections or \paragraph{} headings for individual papers, artifacts, or claims. Explain terms when they first matter, and use a real or conditional such as example only when it makes an abstract mechanism easier to understand without inventing evidence.
• Before retaining or adding a citation, verify that it exists and that its subject, method, setting, and evidence level support the exact claim in the sentence. Prefer genuinely relevant UTD/FT50/CCF-A work, leading marketing, economics, management science, information systems, and computer-science venues, plus foundational, highly cited, influential, and important recent papers. Prestige never compensates for a semantic mismatch.

1. Resolve drafts/writing_style.json and drafts/writing_storyline.md before prose. If a standalone brief does not contain an explicit venue/language decision, use the focused follow-up protocol. The saved profile is an internal drafting target, not an official venue rule. For UTD/IS/INFORMS, the storyline must show phenomenon/problem -> theory/rationale -> mechanism -> design principle -> evidence -> theoretical/practical implication and boundary. For NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR/KDD, it must show technical/data bottleneck -> root technical reason -> core insight -> method module -> main result/ablation/analysis/failure evidence.