메뉴
Draft a concise, honest editor cover letter from MANUSCRIPT_MAP — states the contribution, fit to the venue, and required declarations, with no fabricated significance or invented metrics
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/tansuasici/claude-research-kit --skill cover-letter명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | cover-letter |
| description | Draft a concise, honest editor cover letter from MANUSCRIPT_MAP — states the contribution, fit to the venue, and required declarations, with no fabricated significance or invented metrics |
| user-invocable | true |
A cover letter is an honest, calibrated pitch to the editor, not a sales sheet. It states what the paper contributes, why that fits this venue, and why it matters — using only what the manuscript actually establishes. Never assert significance the paper does not establish. "First study of X" is allowed only if the manuscript defends it; "a major advance," "dramatically outperforms," or a invented effect size is overclaim, and overclaim in the cover letter is the editor's first signal to distrust the paper.
Every number in the letter (tool-call accuracy, task-success delta, sample size) comes from the manuscript's own reported results — never your prior, never rounded up. If the manuscript flags a quantity as [VALUE — verify], the letter does not quote it; it waits. The letter is downstream of the science, never ahead of it.
This skill drafts the letter. It does not change the thesis, the contribution, or any reported quantity — those are Protected Claims (CLAUDE.md → Protected Claims).
Invoke with /cover-letter when:
State the venue if it differs from the map: . Otherwise read it from .
/cover-letter NeurIPSMANUSCRIPT_MAP.md → Target journalMANUSCRIPT_MAP.md — Thesis, Contribution, Target journal (and handling editor if recorded), Audience, and the headline result. The letter is a compression of these; it introduces nothing not already in the map or the manuscript.Keep it to roughly one page, in this order:
[CONFIRM with author], never assert it.Before output, run each sentence through the cardinal rule (CLAUDE.md → Source-Grounded Writing):
# Cover Letter — <manuscript> → NeurIPS
> Source: MANUSCRIPT_MAP (thesis, contribution, headline result) + venue aims.
> Every quantity below is the manuscript's own reported value; nothing strengthened.
Dear Dr. <Editor> [CONFIRM name],
We submit our manuscript, "A Pre-Execution Verification Gate Reduces Hallucinated
Tool Calls in Multi-Turn LLM Agents," as a full research paper for consideration
at NeurIPS.
Multi-turn LLM agents frequently issue tool calls to functions that do not exist or
with malformed arguments; this failure is well documented for single-turn use
[halluc2022] but understudied across multi-step horizons. We introduce a lightweight
gate that validates each proposed call against the tool schema before execution. On
our benchmark, the gate improves tool-call accuracy and task-success rate relative to
an ungated baseline [report the manuscript's exact figures — do not invent]. The
method is model-agnostic and adds negligible latency.
This work fits NeurIPS's scope in agents and tool use, and addresses a deployment
concern — fewer invalid tool calls — of direct interest to that readership.
Declarations: The authors declare no competing interests [CONFIRM]. This manuscript
is not under consideration elsewhere [CONFIRM]. Code and the benchmark are available
at <repo> [CONFIRM / mark "available on request" if not yet public].
Sincerely,
<Corresponding author>, <affiliation>, <email>
---
## Pre-send checklist
- [ ] Venue name and editor spelled correctly (NeurIPS; editor confirmed).
- [ ] Every significance claim is one the manuscript establishes — no "major advance" / "solves."
- [ ] Every number matches the manuscript's reported results, with scope ("on our benchmark").
- [ ] No quantity quoted that is still [VALUE — verify] in the draft.
- [ ] Required declarations present: conflicts, prior submission, data/code, funding/ethics.
- [ ] Reviewer suggestions included only because the author asked; names supplied by the author.
- [ ] Title matches the manuscript title exactly.
MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md — the single source for thesis, contribution, venue, and the headline result; the letter is its compression./journal-fit — run first; the fit verdict and scope reasoning feed the "fit to scope" paragraph. If fit is Weak, fix that before writing the letter./abstract — the abstract and the cover letter share the contribution and headline number; keep them consistent (same calibrated claim, same scope).| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Editors expect enthusiasm — say it's a major advance" | Editors expect accuracy. Unsupported significance is the first credibility hit. State what the paper establishes. |
| "Round 91.6% to 'over 90%' — cleaner" | Quote the manuscript's exact figure with its scope. Reshaping a number in the letter is the same failure as inventing one. |
| "Call it the first such method" | Only if the paper defends that claim. Otherwise "to our knowledge." |
| "Add a strong reviewer to help it along" | Suggested reviewers go in only if the author asks and supplies them. Do not invent names or affiliations. |
| "Skip the data-availability line, we'll sort it later" | A required declaration omitted is a real gap. Mark it [CONFIRM], do not drop it. |
CLAUDE.md → Model Selection); the editor reads tone as a proxy for rigor.