paper-plan

name	paper-plan
description	Generate a structured paper outline from audited formal experiment results and review conclusions. Use when user says "写大纲", "paper outline", "plan the paper", "论文规划", or wants a paper plan after formal runs and evidence audit. If only smoke, pilot, toy, or validation results exist, produce a gap report or next actions instead of routing to manuscript drafting.
argument-hint	[topic-or-narrative-doc] [— style-ref: <source>]
allowed-tools	Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply

Paper Plan: From Review Conclusions to Paper Outline

Generate a structured, section-by-section paper outline from: $ARGUMENTS

Customized Pack Defaults

Read ../../shared-references/lightweight-research-pack.md, ../../shared-references/project-guide-protocol.md, and ../../shared-references/venue-profiles.md, plus ../../shared-references/icde-yu-memory-paper-structure.md before planning. Defaults:

• TARGET_VENUE supports ICLR, AAAI, JMLR, TPAMI, NeurIPS, ICML, and existing legacy venue labels. Apply the target venue profile before freezing claims, evidence, and section order.
• Prefer compact inputs (PROJECT_STATUS.md, docs/project/PROJECT_BRIEF.md, docs/project/BLUEPRINT_GATE.md, docs/paper/PAPER_GUIDE.md, docs/evidence/EVIDENCE_LEDGER.md, docs/experiments/EXPERIMENT_PROTOCOL.md, docs/evidence/findings.md, docs/experiments/EXPERIMENT_LOG.md, CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md, idea-stage/IDEA_CANDIDATES.md) before reading long reports. Read docs/project/RESEARCH_BLUEPRINT.md before freezing the outline when it exists. Fall back to legacy root Markdown paths only when reading old projects.
• Generate a concise docs/paper/PAPER_PLAN.md by default: title candidates, abstract skeleton, claims-evidence matrix, section outline, figure/table inventory, missing-evidence list, and venue risks.
• Paper-plan entry gate: a regular docs/paper/PAPER_PLAN.md requires formal baseline/main/required ablation results plus docs/evidence/EVIDENCE_LEDGER.md or CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md. If the project has only local smoke, AutoDL smoke, pilot, toy, or validation runs, write docs/project/NEXT_ACTIONS.md or docs/paper/GAP_REPORT.md and stop before any manuscript handoff.
• When moving from evidence audit to outline work, update PROJECT_STATUS.md to paper plan. Create or refresh docs/paper/PAPER_GUIDE.md only when the manuscript gate is reached, compacting docs/project/RESEARCH_BLUEPRINT.md or docs/project/PROJECT_GUIDE.md, docs/experiments/EXPERIMENT_PROTOCOL.md, and docs/evidence/EVIDENCE_LEDGER.md instead of duplicating them.
• For outline review, write review-prompts/paper_plan_review_prompt.md and wait for pasted feedback. Do not call reviewer MCP/API backends by default.
• Emit docs/paper/GAP_REPORT.md only when style reference or evidence gaps make it useful; avoid extra Markdown side reports otherwise.

Constants

• PAPER_PACKAGE_STYLE = modular-thin-main - Prefer a thin main.tex that only declares venue/class/packages and \inputs modular section files.

• REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.5 — Model used via Codex MCP for outline review. Must be an OpenAI model.

• TARGET_VENUE = ICLR — Default venue. User can override (e.g., /paper-plan "topic" — venue: NeurIPS). Supported: ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR, ACL, AAAI, JMLR, TPAMI, ACM, IEEE_JOURNAL (IEEE Transactions / Letters), IEEE_CONF (IEEE conferences).

• MAX_PAGES — Page limit. For ML conferences: main body to Conclusion end (excluding references, appendix). ICLR=9, NeurIPS=9, ICML=8. For IEEE venues: references ARE included in page count. IEEE journal Transactions ≈ 12-14 pages total, Letters ≈ 4-5 pages total; IEEE conference ≈ 5-8 pages total (including references).

Inputs

The skill expects one or more of these in the project directory:

1. NARRATIVE_REPORT.md or STORY.md — research narrative with claims and evidence
2. review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md — auto-review loop conclusions (fall back to ./AUTO_REVIEW.md if not found)
3. Experiment results — JSON files in figures/, screen logs, tables
4. idea-stage/IDEA_REPORT.md — from idea-discovery pipeline (if applicable) (fall back to ./IDEA_REPORT.md if not found)
5. Blueprint / gate files (if available): docs/project/RESEARCH_BLUEPRINT.md, docs/project/BLUEPRINT_GATE.md (fall back to legacy root files if needed) — preferred for paper-readiness assumptions, theory, claim map, experiment design, reproducibility, and known gaps.
6. Compact files (if available): idea-stage/IDEA_CANDIDATES.md (fall back to ./IDEA_CANDIDATES.md if not found), docs/evidence/findings.md, docs/experiments/EXPERIMENT_LOG.md (fall back to legacy root files if needed) — preferred over full files when present, saves context window

If none exist, ask the user to describe the paper's contribution in 3-5 sentences.

For regular paper planning, results must be formal and auditable. Treat validation-only evidence as a blocker, even if the method appears promising.

Orchestra-Guided Writing Overlay

Keep the existing insleep workflow and outputs, but use the shared references below to improve the quality of the story and outline.

• Read ../../shared-references/writing-principles.md when framing the one-sentence contribution, Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, or hero figure.
• Read ../../shared-references/paper-writing-rules.md when shaping the paper story, Introduction flow, contribution list, experiment-section obligations, or submission-time structure.
• Read ../../shared-references/icde-yu-memory-paper-structure.md when planning a systems, memory, query-processing, benchmark, IEEE, or Overleaf paper.
• Read ../../shared-references/venue-checklists.md before freezing the outline for a specific venue.
• Only load these references when needed; do not paste their full contents into the working draft.

Optional: Style reference (— style-ref: <source>, opt-in)

Lets the user steer the structural layout of the outline (section ordering, subsection density, theorem-environment density, figure budget, citation style) toward a reference paper. Default OFF — when the user does not pass — style-ref, do nothing differently from before.

Only when — style-ref: <source> appears in $ARGUMENTS, run the helper FIRST, before drafting the outline:

# Resolve $STYLE_HELPER via the canonical strict-safe chain (see
# shared-references/integration-contract.md §2). Policy A — gate:
# unresolved helper means --style-ref cannot be satisfied, so abort.
cd "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)" || exit 1
if [ -z "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f .debuffer_skills/installed-skills.txt ]; then
    ARIS_REPO=$(awk -F'\t' '$1=="repo_root"{print $2; exit}' .debuffer_skills/installed-skills.txt 2>/dev/null) || true
fi
STYLE_HELPER=".debuffer_skills/tools/extract_paper_style.py"
[ -f "$STYLE_HELPER" ] || STYLE_HELPER="tools/extract_paper_style.py"
[ -f "$STYLE_HELPER" ] || { [ -n "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && STYLE_HELPER="$ARIS_REPO/tools/extract_paper_style.py"; }
[ -f "$STYLE_HELPER" ] || {
  echo "ERROR: extract_paper_style.py not resolved at .debuffer_skills/tools/, tools/, or \$ARIS_REPO/tools/." >&2
  echo "       Fix: rerun bash tools/install_aris.sh, export ARIS_REPO, or copy the helper to tools/." >&2
  echo "       --style-ref cannot be satisfied; aborting." >&2
  exit 1
}
STYLE_STATUS=0
CACHE=$(python3 "$STYLE_HELPER" --source "<source>") || STYLE_STATUS=$?
case "$STYLE_STATUS" in
  0) ;;                                       # use $CACHE/style_profile.md as structural guidance
  2) echo "warning: style-ref skipped (missing optional dep)" >&2 ;;
  3) echo "error: --style-ref source failed; aborting outline" >&2 ; exit 1 ;;
  *) echo "error: helper failed unexpectedly; aborting outline" >&2 ; exit 1 ;;
esac

Sources accepted: local TeX dir / file, local PDF, arXiv id (2501.12345 or arxiv:2501.12345), http(s) URL. Overleaf URLs and project IDs are rejected — clone via /overleaf-sync setup <id> first and pass the local clone path.

Strict rules (full contract in tools/extract_paper_style.py docstring):

• Use style_profile.md as structural guidance only when proposing the outline's section list, subsection counts, theorem density, figure budget.
• Never copy prose, claims, examples, section names verbatim, or terminology from anything reachable through the cache. The user's narrative is the only source of substance.
• Never pass — style-ref (or the cache contents) to reviewer / auditor sub-agents. Cross-model review independence (../../shared-references/reviewer-independence.md) requires reviewers see only the artifact and the user's prompt.

Gap Report (docs/paper/GAP_REPORT.md, auto-emitted when style-ref is on)

When — style-ref: succeeded AND any of figures/, results/, data/, tables/, sec/, NARRATIVE_REPORT.md, CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md exists in the project, also emit a gap report before drafting the outline. The gap report maps the exemplar's section topology + density requirements (from style_profile.md) against the user's actual assets, surfacing structural slots where the user has no evidence to fill. It is the contract by which /paper-write decides when to emit <!-- DATA_NEEDED --> markers instead of fabricating content.

Procedure:

1. Read $CACHE/style_profile.md for exemplar's section list + per-section feature counts (figures, theorems, tables, citations, sentences per section).
2. Inventory user assets: figures/* filenames, results/* evidence files, sec/*.tex existing prose, NARRATIVE_REPORT.md, CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md (if /result-to-claim ran), references.bib for citation density.
3. For each section slot the exemplar implies (ablation table, scaling experiment, failure-case analysis, proof block, …), classify as covered / partial / missing.
4. Emit docs/paper/GAP_REPORT.md:

# GAP_REPORT — exemplar vs user assets

- **Exemplar source:** <source identifier (file path, arXiv ID, URL)>
- **Generated:** <UTC ISO-8601>
- **Style profile:** <relative path to style_profile.md>

## Section topology gaps

| Exemplar slot | Exemplar feature | User evidence | Status | Slot ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| §5 Experiments | ablation table (3 axes × 4 levels) | `results/` has no ablation file | missing | `GAP_S5_ABLATION` |
| §5.3 Scaling | log-N scaling curve | `figures/scaling.pdf` not found | missing | `GAP_S5_SCALING` |
| §6 Discussion | failure-case analysis | not present in `NARRATIVE_REPORT.md` | missing | `GAP_S6_FAILURE` |
| §2 Related | citation density ≥ 60 | `references.bib` has 35 entries | partial | `GAP_S2_CITES` |

## Coverage summary

- covered: N
- partial: M
- missing: K

## Used by

- `/paper-write` reads this file and emits `<!-- DATA_NEEDED: <Slot ID> — <one-line description> -->` placeholders for `missing` slots instead of fabricating content.
- `/paper-claim-audit` can use Slot IDs to flag claims that cite sections with `missing` evidence.

Slot ID format: GAP_<SECTION>_<FEATURE>, all-caps, stable across regenerations unless user assets change.

Rules (hard):

• Do not infer, fill, or hallucinate evidence to "close" gaps. Missing is missing.
• Do not propose specific experiment commands to fill gaps — that is /experiment-bridge's job. Gap Report just surfaces deficits.
• Do not include exemplar prose / claim text / author names / quantitative figures from the exemplar.
• If style_profile.md extraction failed or the user has no project assets, skip Gap Report (no error; just do not emit the file).
• The gap report is also subject to reviewer isolation — never passed to reviewer / auditor sub-agents (same rule as style_profile.md).

Workflow

Step 1: Extract Claims and Evidence

Before extracting from long narrative reports, read PROJECT_STATUS.md, docs/project/BLUEPRINT_GATE.md, docs/project/RESEARCH_BLUEPRINT.md, docs/paper/PAPER_GUIDE.md, docs/evidence/EVIDENCE_LEDGER.md, and docs/experiments/EXPERIMENT_PROTOCOL.md when they exist, falling back to legacy root paths only for old projects. If they conflict with older logs, prefer the newer gate artifact and surface the conflict in the missing-evidence list. If no blueprint exists and the project is moving from experiments into paper-readiness planning, run or request research-blueprint unless the user explicitly wants only a lightweight provisional outline.

Run the paper-plan entry gate before drafting the outline:

1. Confirm PROJECT_STATUS.md or docs/project/BLUEPRINT_GATE.md places the project at evidence audit or later, or explicitly records that formal runs are complete.
2. Confirm formal run evidence exists for paper-level claims: raw run folders, metrics, configs/resolved configs, seeds, logs/metadata, and result summaries.
3. Confirm docs/evidence/EVIDENCE_LEDGER.md, CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md, or an equivalent claim-to-evidence audit maps claims to raw evidence and unresolved gaps.
4. If any check fails, do not produce a normal paper plan and do not list /paper-write or /paper-writing as a next step. Instead produce the smallest useful docs/project/NEXT_ACTIONS.md or docs/paper/GAP_REPORT.md with the missing formal experiments/audits and stop. If the user explicitly asks for a provisional outline, label it PRE_PAPER_OUTLINE and keep its next steps in experiment/audit phases only.

First check for CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md — if it exists (generated by /result-to-claim at the end of Workflow 2), use it as the starting point for claims. This file contains validated claims already mapped to experiment evidence. Merge with any additional claims from the narrative documents below.

If CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md does not exist, extract claims from scratch:

Read all available narrative documents and extract:

1. Core claims (3-5 main contributions)
2. One-sentence contribution (the single sentence that best states what the paper contributes)
3. Evidence for each claim (which experiments, which metrics, which figures)
4. Known weaknesses (from reviewer feedback)
5. Suggested framing (from review conclusions)

Build a Claims-Evidence Matrix:

| Claim | Evidence | Status | Section |
|-------|----------|--------|---------|
| [claim 1] | [exp A, metric B] | Supported | §3.2 |
| [claim 2] | [exp C] | Partially supported | §4.1 |

Step 1.5: Freeze the Evidence Story Before Structure

Before deciding section order, record one sentence each for the research question, main finding, and significance. Freeze the one-sentence core contribution only when all three are supported by the Claims-Evidence Matrix.

Build the Claim–Evidence–Figure Storyboard inside PAPER_PLAN.md. It is the contract for figures, Results prose, and user review; it is not a separate narrative report.

## Claim–Evidence–Figure Storyboard

| Order | Figure/Table | Primary question | Claim supported | Evidence/raw-result locator | Strongest permitted conclusion | Excluded conclusion | Missing evidence/analysis | Narrative location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fig. 1 | [single question] | [claim ID] | [run path / table / script] | [what data directly show] | [causal, universal, or mechanism claim not shown] | [none or exact gap] | [Results §x] |

Hard rules:

• Every primary figure/table answers one primary question; split overloaded figures rather than asking readers to infer several conclusions at once.
• The storyboard order is the first-draft evidence order, not necessarily the final numbering. Preserve conventional final section order in the manuscript.
• The permitted conclusion sets the maximum claim strength; the excluded conclusion prevents correlation-to-causation or scope inflation.
• Missing rows are experiment/audit work, not prose to invent. Record bounded user decisions or interpretation questions in the plan.

Step 2: Determine Paper Type and Structure

Based on TARGET_VENUE and paper content, classify and select structure.

Before committing to a structure, apply the narrative principle from ../../shared-references/writing-principles.md:

• The paper should tell one coherent technical story.
• By the end of the Introduction, the outline should make the What, Why, and So What explicit.
• Front-load the most important material: title, abstract, introduction, and hero figure. Reviewers often form a judgment before reading the full method.

IMPORTANT: The section count is FLEXIBLE (5-8 sections). Choose what fits the content best. The templates below are starting points, not rigid constraints.

When the paper is system-, memory-, benchmark-, or query-processing-heavy, prefer a TRACE/ICDE_YU_Memory-style section topology instead of forcing a generic method-paper order:

1. Introduction
2. Methodology / Data Model
3. Benchmark or Dataset Construction
4. Experiments
5. Discussion
6. Related Work
7. Conclusion

Empirical/Diagnostic paper:

1. Introduction (1.5 pages)
2. Related Work (0.5 pages)
3. Method / Setup (1.5 pages)
4. Experiments (3 pages)
5. Analysis / Discussion (1 page)
6. Conclusion (0.25-0.3 pages)

Theory + Experiments paper:

1. Introduction (1.5 pages)
2. Related Work (0.5 pages)
3. Preliminaries & Modeling (1.5 pages)
4. Experiments (1.5 pages)
5. Theory Part A (1.5 pages)
6. Theory Part B (1.5 pages)
7. Conclusion (0.25-0.3 pages)
— Total: 9 pages

Theory papers often need 7 sections (splitting theory into estimation + optimization, or setup + analysis). The total page budget MUST sum to MAX_PAGES.

Theory papers should:

• Include proof sketch locations (not just theorem statements)
• Plan a comparison table of prior theoretical bounds vs. this paper's bounds
• Identify which proofs go in appendix vs. main body

Method paper:

1. Introduction (1.5 pages)
2. Related Work (0.5 pages)
3. Method (2 pages)
4. Experiments (2.5 pages)
5. Ablation / Analysis (1 page)
6. Conclusion (0.25-0.3 pages)

Step 3: Section-by-Section Planning

For future manuscript packaging, assume a modular paper bundle rather than a flat one-file draft: thin main.tex, modular section files, and dedicated figure/table assets. This is the default target when the user wants paper packages at least as structured as ICDE_YU_Memory.

For each section, specify:

### §0 Abstract
- **What we achieve**: [the paper's specific contribution, not field-level background]
- **Why it matters / is hard**: [why this problem is important and non-trivial]
- **How we do it**: [approach in one sentence]
- **Evidence**: [what supports the claim]
- **Most remarkable result**: [strongest quantitative or theoretical result]
- **Estimated length**: 150-250 words
- **Self-contained check**: can a reader understand this without the paper?

### §1 Introduction
- **Opening hook**: [1-2 sentences that motivate the problem]
- **Gap / challenge**: [what's missing in prior work, and why prior work is insufficient]
- **One-sentence contribution**: [the main takeaway of the paper]
- **Approach overview**: [what we do differently]
- **Key questions**: [the research questions this paper answers]
- **Contributions**: [2-4 numbered bullets, specific and falsifiable, matching Claims-Evidence Matrix]
- **Results preview**: [the strongest result or comparison to surface early]
- **Hero figure**: [describe what Figure 1 should show — MUST include clear comparison if applicable]
- **Estimated length**: 1.5 pages
- **Key citations**: [3-5 papers to cite here]
- **Front-loading check**: [would a skim reader know the main claim before reaching the method?]

### §2 Related Work
- **Subtopics**: [2-4 categories of related work]
- **Positioning**: [how this paper differs from each category]
- **Default length**: compact; together with Conclusion, stay within about
  0.8 page for IEEE/Overleaf-style two-column papers unless the venue requires
  a longer survey.
- **Organization rule**: organize by methodological family / assumption / question, not paper-by-paper
- **Must NOT be just a list** — synthesize, compare, and position

### §3 Method / Setup / Preliminaries
- **Notation**: [key symbols and their meanings]
- **Problem formulation**: [formal setup]
- **Method description**: [algorithm, model, or experimental design]
- **Formal statements**: [theorems, propositions if applicable]
- **Proof sketch locations**: [which key steps appear here vs. appendix]
- **Estimated length**: 1.5-2 pages

### §4 Experiments / Main Results
- **Figures planned**:
  - Fig 1: [description, type: bar/line/table/architecture, WHAT COMPARISON it shows]
  - Fig 2: [description]
  - Table 1: [what it shows, which methods/baselines compared]
- **Data source**: [which JSON files / experiment results]

### §5 Conclusion
- **Restatement**: [contributions rephrased, not copy-pasted from intro]
- **Limitations**: [honest assessment — reviewers value this]
- **Future work**: [1-2 concrete directions]
- **Estimated length**: 0.25-0.3 pages by default; do not expand it into a
  second discussion section.

Step 4: Figure Plan and Storyboard Check

List every figure and table using the Claim–Evidence–Figure Storyboard fields; do not reduce the plan to visual type and data source alone.

## Figure Plan

For system- or memory-style papers, require these figure-plan slots unless
genuinely inapplicable:
- Figure 1: offline / construction overview
- Figure 2: online / query-time pipeline
- one main-comparison table
- one ablation or component-impact visualization

| Order | ID | Type | Primary question | Claim supported | Data / raw-result locator | Strongest permitted conclusion | Excluded conclusion | Missing evidence/analysis | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fig. 1 | Hero/Architecture | [what the method changes] | C1 | [manual source / design spec] | [method structure is distinct] | [performance superiority] | [comparison figure if needed] | HIGH |
| 2 | Table 1 | Comparison table | [does it improve the target metric?] | C1 | figures/main_results.json | [bounded empirical improvement] | [universal dominance] | [dataset/metric gap] | HIGH |
| 3 | Fig. 2 | Line plot | [when and where does it help?] | C2 | figures/exp_A.json | [trend under stated conditions] | [unobserved mechanism] | [stress-test gap] | HIGH |
| 4 | Fig. 3 | Bar chart | [which component matters?] | C3 | figures/ablation.json | [component impact in this setup] | [necessary in every setting] | [interaction ablation] | MEDIUM |
| 5 | Table 2 | Theory comparison | [how do bounds compare?] | C4 | [proof / comparison source] | [stated bound relation] | [practical gain without data] | [assumption audit] | HIGH (theory papers) |

CRITICAL for Figure 1 / Hero Figure: Describe which methods are compared, what visual distinction it demonstrates, a caption draft, its primary question, and why a skim reader can recover the paper's core claim without reading the full method. If the hero figure is conceptual rather than evidential, mark that it cannot by itself support a performance claim.

Before leaving this step, verify that every planned Results paragraph has a storyboard row, no figure is used to support an excluded conclusion, and every missing item becomes either an evidence task or a bounded user decision.

Step 5: Citation Scaffolding

For each section, list required citations:

## Citation Plan
- §1 Intro: [paper1], [paper2], [paper3] (problem motivation)
- §2 Related: [paper4]-[paper10] (categorized by subtopic)
- §3 Method: [paper11] (baseline), [paper12] (technique we build on)

Citation rules (from claude-scholar + Imbad0202/academic-research-skills):

1. NEVER generate BibTeX from memory — always verify via search or existing .bib files
2. Every citation must be verified: correct authors, year, venue
3. Flag any citation you're unsure about with [VERIFY]
4. Use published conference or journal versions by default; arXiv is a discovery source only unless the user explicitly accepts an unpublished preprint exception.

Step 6: Cross-Review with REVIEWER_MODEL

Send the complete outline to GPT-5.4 xhigh for feedback:

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-5.5
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    Review this paper outline for a [VENUE] submission.
    [full outline including Claims-Evidence Matrix]

    Score 1-10 on:
    1. Logical flow — does the story build naturally?
    2. Claim-evidence alignment — every claim backed?
    3. Missing experiments or analysis
    4. Positioning relative to prior work
    5. Page budget feasibility (MAX_PAGES = main body to Conclusion end, excluding refs/appendix)
    6. Front-matter strength — are the abstract, introduction, and hero figure plan strong enough for skim-reading reviewers?
    7. Tail compactness — do Related Work and Conclusion together stay within
       about 0.8 page unless the venue requires otherwise?

    For each weakness, suggest the MINIMUM fix.
    Be specific and actionable — "add X" not "consider more experiments".

Apply feedback before finalizing.

Step 7: Output

Save the final outline to docs/paper/PAPER_PLAN.md:

# Paper Plan

**Title**: [working title]
**One-sentence contribution**: [single-sentence statement of the paper's core takeaway]
**Venue**: [target venue]
**Type**: [empirical/theory/method]
**Date**: [today]
**Page budget**: [MAX_PAGES] pages (main body to Conclusion end, excluding references & appendix)
**Section count**: [N] (must match the number of section files that will be created)

## Claims-Evidence Matrix
[from Step 1]

## Structure
[from Step 2-3, section by section]

## Claim–Evidence–Figure Storyboard
[from Step 1.5; include the question, raw-result locator, conclusion boundary,
excluded conclusion, missing evidence, and narrative order for every primary
figure/table]

## Figure Plan
[from Step 4, with detailed hero figure description]

## User Decisions / Open Questions
- [decision or interpretation that cannot be settled from current evidence]
- [owner and decision deadline/checkpoint]

## Citation Plan
[from Step 5]

## Reviewer Feedback
[from Step 6, summarized]

## Next Steps
[Choose exactly one block.]

### Manuscript entry gate PASSED
- [ ] /paper-figure to generate all figures
- [ ] /paper-write to draft LaTeX
- [ ] /paper-compile to build PDF

### Manuscript entry gate NOT PASSED
- [ ] Complete missing formal runs through /autodl-hpc or /experiment-plan
- [ ] Run /experiment-audit or complete docs/evidence/EVIDENCE_LEDGER.md
- [ ] Rerun /paper-plan after the evidence gate passes

Key Rules

• No manuscript handoff without formal evidence — if formal runs or the evidence audit are missing, stop at gap reporting and do not recommend /paper-write, /paper-writing, or LaTeX drafting.
• Large file handling: If the Write tool fails due to file size, immediately retry using Bash (cat << 'EOF' > file) to write in chunks. Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.
• Do NOT generate author information — leave author block as placeholder or anonymous
• Be honest about evidence gaps — mark claims as "needs experiment" rather than overclaiming
• Page budget is hard — if content exceeds MAX_PAGES, suggest what to move to appendix
• Tail budget is hard by default — for IEEE/Overleaf-style two-column papers, plan Related Work + Conclusion as compact tail sections totaling no more than about 0.8 page unless explicitly overridden.
• MAX_PAGES counting differs by venue — ML conferences: main body to Conclusion end, references/appendix NOT counted. IEEE venues: references ARE counted toward the page limit.
• Venue-specific norms — ML conferences (ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML) use natbib (\citep/\citet); IEEE venues use cite package (\cite{}, numeric style)
• Claims-Evidence Matrix is the backbone — every claim must map to evidence, every experiment must support a claim
• Storyboard before prose — every primary figure/table must state one question, its raw-result locator, its strongest permitted conclusion, and its excluded conclusion before writing Results
• Open decisions stay visible — mark user-facing interpretation or scope decisions in PAPER_PLAN.md; never resolve them through unmarked prose
• Front-load the story — the outline should make the contribution clear in the title, abstract, introduction, and hero figure before the reader reaches the full method
• Figures need detailed descriptions — especially the hero figure, which must clearly specify comparisons and visual expectations
• Section count is flexible — 5-8 sections depending on paper type. Don't force content into a rigid 5-section template.

Acknowledgements

Outline methodology inspired by Research-Paper-Writing-Skills (claim-evidence mapping), claude-scholar (citation verification), and Imbad0202/academic-research-skills (claim verification protocol). The writing-framing overlay in this hybrid pack is adapted from Orchestra Research's paper-writing guidance.

Output Protocols

Follow these shared protocols for all output files:

• Output Versioning Protocol — write timestamped file first, then copy to fixed name
• Output Manifest Protocol — log every output to docs/project/OUTPUT_MANIFEST.md
• Output Language Protocol — respect the project's language setting