$npx -y skills add Master-cai/Research-Paper-Writing-Skills --skill research-paper-writingImprove academic paper writing quality for ML/CV/NLP-style papers with clear section structure, paragraph flow, and reviewer-facing presentation. Use when drafting or revising Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Method, Experiments, or Conclusion; polishing figures/tables; chec
| 1 | # Research Paper Writing |
| 2 | |
| 3 | ## Overview |
| 4 | |
| 5 | Use this skill to rewrite a research paper into a reviewer-friendly, high-clarity draft. |
| 6 | Prioritize first-impression quality (figures/tables/layout), logical flow, and evidence-backed claims. |
| 7 | |
| 8 | ## Core Workflow |
| 9 | |
| 10 | 1. Clarify the paper story before sentence-level edits. |
| 11 | 2. Use section-specific guidance in `references/`. |
| 12 | 3. Rewrite paragraph-by-paragraph with one message per paragraph. |
| 13 | 4. Run reverse outlining after writing each section. |
| 14 | 5. Check every major claim in Abstract/Introduction against experimental evidence. |
| 15 | 6. Run final-paper adversarial review with `references/paper-review.md`. |
| 16 | |
| 17 | ## Global Principles |
| 18 | |
| 19 | 1. Keep one paragraph for one message only. |
| 20 | 2. State the paragraph message in the first sentence. |
| 21 | 3. Make nouns self-contained; define new terms before reusing them. |
| 22 | 4. Maintain sentence-to-sentence flow (cause, contrast, consequence, or refinement). |
| 23 | 5. Iterate with adversarial self-review: read as a skeptical reviewer. |
| 24 | 6. Treat visual quality as core content, not decoration. |
| 25 | 7. Use a clean teaser and pipeline figure. |
| 26 | 8. Use readable, minimal-ink tables. |
| 27 | 9. Keep formatting consistent and tidy. |
| 28 | |
| 29 | ## Paragraph Clarity Check (Important) |
| 30 | |
| 31 | Use this quick test whenever the user asks whether a paragraph "flows" or is clear. |
| 32 | |
| 33 | 1. Read as an external reader: |
| 34 | - Does this paragraph have one explicit message? |
| 35 | - Does the first sentence state what this paragraph will do? |
| 36 | - Are all key nouns/terms readable without hidden context? |
| 37 | - Does each sentence connect to the previous one with a clear relation (cause, contrast, consequence, refinement, example)? |
| 38 | 2. Run reverse outlining for the current section: |
| 39 | - Write down thesis/main claim. |
| 40 | - Write down each paragraph topic sentence. |
| 41 | - Write down the evidence/explanation points under each paragraph. |
| 42 | - Check mapping: topic sentence -> thesis, and evidence -> topic sentence. |
| 43 | - Revise or remove any paragraph that cannot be mapped cleanly. |
| 44 | 3. If flow is still weak, add temporary section headers and explicit transition phrases during revision, then remove unnecessary headers before finalizing. |
| 45 | |
| 46 | Source reference for this check: |
| 47 | |
| 48 | - `references/does-my-writing-flow-source.md` |
| 49 | |
| 50 | ## Section Guides |
| 51 | |
| 52 | Load only the needed section file: |
| 53 | |
| 54 | - Introduction: `references/introduction.md` |
| 55 | - Abstract: `references/abstract.md` |
| 56 | - Related Work: `references/related-work.md` |
| 57 | - Method: `references/method.md` |
| 58 | - Experiments: `references/experiments.md` |
| 59 | - Conclusion: `references/conclusion.md` |
| 60 | - Paper review (Paper Review): `references/paper-review.md` |
| 61 | - Paragraph clarity source: `references/does-my-writing-flow-source.md` |
| 62 | - Example bank index: `references/examples/index.md` |
| 63 | |
| 64 | ## Paper Review Core Points |
| 65 | |
| 66 | Use `references/paper-review.md` for the full checklist and workflow. |
| 67 | |
| 68 | 1. Add an end-of-draft self-review question list in five dimensions: |
| 69 | - contribution, |
| 70 | - writing clarity, |
| 71 | - experimental strength, |
| 72 | - evaluation completeness, |
| 73 | - method design soundness. |
| 74 | 2. Treat claim-evidence alignment as a hard constraint, especially for Abstract and Introduction. |
| 75 | 3. Perform adversarial writing: review as a skeptical reviewer and resolve every high-risk question. |
| 76 | 4. Revise until major rejection risks are explicitly addressed. |
| 77 | |
| 78 | ## Execution Rules |
| 79 | |
| 80 | 1. Build a mini-outline before drafting prose. |
| 81 | 2. For each subsection, explicitly include motivation, design, and technical advantage when applicable. |
| 82 | 3. Avoid writing style that looks like incremental patching of a naive baseline. |
| 83 | 4. Keep terminology stable across the full paper. |
| 84 | 5. If a claim cannot be supported by results, weaken or remove the claim. |
| 85 | 6. Before finalizing, append and answer a five-dimension self-review question list, then revise the paper based on unresolved items. |
| 86 | 7. Do not load all section references (Introduction/Abstract/Related Work/Method/Experiments/Conclusion) at once; load only the specific section guide needed for the current edit target. |
| 87 | |
| 88 | ## Output Contract |
| 89 | |
| 90 | When asked to rewrite or draft sections, return: |
| 91 | |
| 92 | 1. A compact section outline (3-7 bullets). |
| 93 | 2. Revised paragraphs with explicit paragraph roles (opening/challenge/method/advantage/evidence/limitation). |
| 94 | 3. A short self-review checklist covering clarity, flow, terminology consistency, unsupported claims, and missing evidence. |
| 95 | 4. A claim-evidence map for each major claim in the revised text using `Claim: ... | Evidence: ... | Status: supported/needs evidence`. |