Paper Plan

---
name: "paper-plan"
description: "Generate a structured paper outline from review conclusions and experiment results. Use when user says \"写大纲\", \"paper outline\", \"plan the paper\", \"论文规划\", or wants to create a paper plan before writing."
---

<!-- EVO-INQUIRY:BEGIN -->
For research work, read [EvoInquiry](../shared-references/evo-inquiry.md),
or reuse it if already loaded and unchanged in this session. Apply relevant
principles within the user's scope and this skill's existing outputs, review
standards, and recovery contracts. Carry them into nested research tasks and
reviewer briefs. Continue authorized work through its necessary steps; honor
budgets, blocking checkpoints, and stopping conditions.

For this stage, read [project-governance](../shared-references/project-governance.md). Plan the narrative from fixed report/evidence revisions and actual review status; retain these refs for drafting instead of re-reading a floating current report.
<!-- EVO-INQUIRY:END -->

> Override for Codex users who want **Gemini**, not a second Codex agent, to act as the reviewer. Install this package **after** `skills/skills-codex/*`.

# Paper Plan: From Review Conclusions to Paper Outline

> **Gemini overlay assurance:** verify the actual different-family reviewer before recording `review_independence: cross-family`; `acceptance_status: accepted` requires a positive disposition and the workflow's evidence closure. Negative, unavailable and budget-stop outcomes grant no phase acceptance; same-family responses retain the base provisional contract.

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

## Constants

- **REVIEWER_MODEL = `gemini-review`** — Gemini reviewer invoked through the local `gemini-review` MCP bridge. Set `GEMINI_REVIEW_MODEL` if you need a specific Gemini model override.
- **TARGET_VENUE = `ICLR`** — Default venue. User can override (e.g., `/paper-plan "topic" — venue: NeurIPS`). Supported: `ICLR`, `NeurIPS`, `ICML`.
- **MAX_PAGES** — Main body page limit, measured from first page to end of Conclusion section (excluding references, appendix, and acknowledgements). ICLR=9, NeurIPS=9, ICML=8.

## 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)*

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

## Workflow

### Step 1: Extract Claims and Evidence

Read all available narrative documents and extract:

1. **Core claims** (3-5 main contributions)
2. **Evidence** for each claim (which experiments, which metrics, which figures)
3. **Known weaknesses** (from reviewer feedback)
4. **Suggested framing** (from review conclusions)

Build a **Claims-Evidence Matrix**:

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

### Step 2: Determine Paper Type and Structure

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

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

**Empirical/Diagnostic paper:**
```
1. Introduction (1.5 pages)
2. Related Work (1 page)
3. Method / Setup (1.5 pages)
4. Experiments (3 pages)
5. Analysis / Discussion (1 page)
6. Conclusion (0.5 pages)
```

**Theory + Experiments paper:**
```
1. Introduction (1.5 pages)
2. Related Work (1 page)
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 (0.5 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 (1 page)
3. Method (2 pages)
4. Experiments (2.5 pages)
5. Ablation / Analysis (1 page)
6. Conclusion (0.5 pages)
```

### Step 3: Section-by-Section Planning

For each section, specify:

```markdown
### §0 Abstract
- **One-sentence problem**: [what gap this paper addresses]
- **Approach**: [what we do, in one sentence]
- **Key result**: [most compelling quantitative finding]
- **Implication**: [why it matters]
- **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**: [what's missing in prior work]
- **Key questions**: [the research questions this paper answers]
- **Contributions**: [numbered list, matching Claims-Evidence Matrix]
- **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]

### §2 Related Work
- **Subtopics**: [2-4 categories of related work]
- **Positioning**: [how this paper differs from each category]
- **Minimum length**: 1 full page (at least 3-4 paragraphs with substantive synthesis)
- **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**: 0.5 pages
```

### Step 4: Figure Plan

List every figure and table:

```markdown
## Figure Plan

| ID | Type | Description | Data Source | Priority |
|----|------|-------------|-------------|----------|
| Fig 1 | Hero/Architecture | System overview + comparison | manual | HIGH |
| Fig 2 | Line plot | Training curves comparison | figures/exp_A.json | HIGH |
| Fig 3 | Bar chart | Ablation results | figures/ablation.json | MEDIUM |
| Table 1 | Comparison table | Main results vs. baselines | figures/main_results.json | HIGH |
| Table 2 | Theory comparison | Prior bounds vs. ours | manual | HIGH (theory papers) |
```

**CRITICAL for Figure 1 / Hero Figure**: Describe in detail what the figure should contain, including:
- Which methods are being compared
- What the visual difference should demonstrate
- Caption draft that clearly states the comparison

### Step 5: Citation Scaffolding

For each section, list required citations:

```markdown
## 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. Prefer published versions over arXiv preprints when available

### Step 6: Cross-Review with REVIEWER_MODEL

Send the complete outline to Gemini review for feedback:

```
mcp__gemini-review__review_start:
  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)

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

After this start call, immediately save the returned `jobId` and poll `mcp__gemini-review__review_status` with a bounded `waitSeconds` until `done=true`. Treat the completed status payload's `response` as the reviewer output, and save the completed `threadId` for any follow-up round.

Apply feedback before finalizing.

### Step 7: Output

Save the final outline to `PAPER_PLAN.md` in the project root:

```markdown
# Paper Plan

**Title**: [working title]
**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]

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

## Citation Plan
[from Step 5]

## Reviewer Feedback
[from Step 6, summarized]

## Next Steps
- [ ] /paper-figure to generate all figures
- [ ] /paper-write to draft LaTeX
- [ ] /paper-compile to build PDF
```

## Output Protocols

> Follow these shared protocols for all output files:
> - **[Output Versioning Protocol](../shared-references/output-versioning.md)** — write timestamped file first, then copy to fixed name
> - **[Output Manifest Protocol](../shared-references/output-manifest.md)** — log every output to MANIFEST.md
> - **[Output Language Protocol](../shared-references/output-language.md)** — respect the project's language setting

## Key Rules

- **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
- **MAX_PAGES counts main body only** — from first page to end of Conclusion. References and appendix are NOT counted.
- **Venue-specific norms** — all three venues (ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML) use `natbib` (`\citep`/`\citet`)
- **Claims-Evidence Matrix is the backbone** — every claim must map to evidence, every experiment must support a claim
- **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](https://github.com/Master-cai/Research-Paper-Writing-Skills) (claim-evidence mapping), [claude-scholar](https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar) (citation verification), and [Imbad0202/academic-research-skills](https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills) (claim verification protocol).

## Evidence fidelity

Keep the original research question and primary outcomes visible, including
material null or negative findings beside the claim they qualify. An explicitly
exploratory question may motivate a new narrative; record that change rather
than presenting a selected favorable metric as the original objective. Scope
claims to verified evidence and distinguish lack of support from disproof.

For empirical papers, check whether the existing analysis includes sample-level diagnosis. When it helps answer the research question, allocate a compact case-study or error-analysis section using [case-study-analysis](../shared-references/case-study-analysis.md). Link its actual evidence and selection rule, including material regressions or shared failures. If artifacts are missing, record a collection need rather than inventing a panel or delaying an unrelated outline. Illustrative cases do not upgrade aggregate evidence or establish a mechanism.