papersmart-outline

name	papersmart-outline
description	Create or revise PaperSmart manuscript outlines, argument maps, article structures, section plans, figure/table plans, and evidence plans from an active project. Use when the user asks for a paper outline, research-paper structure, manuscript plan, argument framework, journal-specific outline, literature-backed outline, or conceptual architecture before full drafting.

PaperSmart-outline

Overview

Turn rough research materials into a journal-aware, evidence-grounded manuscript outline. The output should be a usable writing blueprint, not a generic section list.

Language And Path Mode

Before reading project files, read the PaperSmart profile:

• English mode: shared/memory/papersmart_profile.md
• Chinese mode: 共享/记忆/papersmart_profile.md

Use the configured path map. If language is zh, use Chinese folder names and answer in Chinese. If no profile exists, assume English mode.

Project Selection

1. Identify the active project under the configured project root.
2. If the user names a project, use it.
3. If only one project exists, use it.
4. If multiple projects exist and the intended project is unclear, ask before writing.

Clarification Gate

Use a grill-me style clarification gate before outlining when ambiguity could change the manuscript's direction, evidence boundary, journal fit, or section structure. Do not ask questions for low-risk defaults that can be recorded as TODOs.

Ask when any of these points are unclear or conflicting:

• Active project, article type, target journal, target language, or intended audience.
• Core research question, central contribution, study boundary, or preferred theoretical frame.
• Whether to build a conservative evidence-first outline or a more ambitious high-impact argument.
• Which sources, datasets, writing samples, cases, figures, or tables are authoritative.
• Whether missing information should pause the outline or remain as TODO: [specific missing evidence or action].
• Whether literature search should be broad, journal-family specific, recent-only, or limited to user-provided sources.

Question rules:

• Ask at most 1-3 questions per gate. Choose the highest-impact uncertainties first.
• Each question must include 2-3 concrete options and one final custom-input option.
• Mark one option as (Recommended) when a defensible default exists. The recommended option should usually be conservative and evidence-safe.
• Explain the impact or tradeoff of each option in one short sentence.
• In Chinese mode, ask in Chinese and label the final option as 自行输入. In English mode, ask in English and label it as Other / custom input.
• After the user answers, continue from the answer and record material decisions in logs/decision_log.md or 03_output/supplement/outline_decisions.md when they affect later drafting.

Use this format:

**Clarification Gate**
I need one decision before I continue: <question>

Options:
A. <option> (Recommended) - <impact/tradeoff>
B. <option> - <impact/tradeoff>
C. <option> - <impact/tradeoff>
D. Other / custom input - Write your own instruction.

Required Reading

Read these files, relative to the active project root, before generating or revising an outline:

1. config/project_config.md
2. 01_draft/README.md
3. 01_draft/data_inventory.md
4. 02_reference/style_notes.md
5. 02_reference/reference_index.md
6. Relevant drafts, notes, tables, datasets, figures, target-journal files, and 02_reference/writing_samples

In Chinese mode, use the equivalent configured paths such as 配置/项目配置.md, 01_草稿/数据清单.md, 02_参考/风格说明.md, 02_参考/参考索引.md, and 02_参考/写作样本.

Do not overwrite original files in 01_draft or 02_reference.

Workflow

1. Extract constraints: working title, article type, target journal, language, research object, core question, study scope, available evidence, missing information, and forbidden assumptions.
2. Run the clarification gate if any high-impact uncertainty remains after required reading.
3. Extract journal style: heading depth, abstract shape, reference style, table/figure expectations, declaration order, word limits, and whether headings should be numbered.
4. Build the central claim. State the paper's one-sentence thesis and the main argumentative turn that distinguishes it from a descriptive report.
5. Audit evidence at outline level. Separate user-provided materials, data/figures/tables, literature anchors, style-only references, and unsupported claims.
6. Derive literature-search constraints for major outlines, introductions, discussions, reviews, or full-paper preparation unless the user explicitly says not to search. Save a search frame when useful.
7. Create the section plan. Each section should have a function, central claim, evidence to use, likely citations, figure/table needs, and TODOs.
8. Create a figure/table plan if visual evidence or conceptual diagrams are central to the paper. Figures must serve the argument, not decorate it.
9. Mark unsupported or missing material with precise TODO: [specific missing evidence or action] notes.
10. Save the outline to 03_output/manuscript/paper_outline.md unless the user specifies another path.

Outline Shape

Use a structure like this, adapting it to the target journal:

# Paper outline: <title>

Date: <date>
Active project: <path>
Target journal: <journal or TODO>
Article type: <type or TODO>

## Core thesis

<One-sentence thesis>

## Research questions

1. <question>

## Argument chain

<Step-by-step logic>

## Proposed manuscript structure

### <section title>

Function:
Central claim:
Evidence:
Literature needed:
Figure/table role:
TODO:

## Figure and table plan

| Item | Function | Source material | Form | Manuscript placement | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

## Literature search frame

Core concepts:
Date range:
Inclusion rules:
Exclusion rules:
Source priority:

## Evidence gaps and TODOs

Evidence Rules

• Do not invent data, methods, results, citations, author details, journal requirements, ethics, funding, conflicts, or acknowledgements.
• Treat target-journal files and writing samples as style references unless the manuscript explicitly discusses their substantive claims.
• Do not cite style-only samples as scholarly evidence.
• Keep claims traceable to 01_draft, 02_reference, verified literature, generated analysis outputs, or explicit user instructions.
• Use cautious language when the outline is conceptual and evidence remains to be gathered.
• Do not treat unresolved examples, cases, financial claims, operational claims, or literature gaps as settled outline claims. Either remove them from the core argument or mark the exact missing source with TODO: [specific missing evidence or action].

Output Updates

When the outline materially affects later drafting, also create or update:

• 03_output/supplement/literature_search_frame.md
• 03_output/supplement/claim_source_map.md
• 03_output/revision/change_log.md
• logs/writing_log.md for major writing decisions