paper-writing-review

Paper Writing Review

Write and revise scholarly text from project evidence, not from free-floating memory. Use this for papers, proposals, related work, abstracts, introductions, methods, limitations, and internal writing review. Use rebuttal-revision-strategy for reviewer response letters and rebuttal plans.

Read First

• references/repository-contract.md
• references/claim-audit.md
• references/workflow-stage-contracts.md

Inputs

Before writing, identify:

• target artifact: proposal, paper, related work, abstract, section draft, or slides
• venue or audience
• citation style or LaTeX template
• source corpus
• intended contribution
• claims that must be preserved or avoided

If any of source corpus, contribution, or claim support is missing, produce a writing plan or evidence-gap list before drafting durable scholarly prose.

Writing Rules

• Use sota/, wiki/, and sources/ as evidence.
• Preserve citation keys, labels, equations, and references unless asked to edit them.
• Mark missing evidence instead of inventing citations.
• Keep limitations and scope explicit.
• Separate author claims from cited claims.
• For related work, synthesize themes instead of listing papers mechanically.
• Use hedging that matches evidence strength; do not upgrade "suggests" to "demonstrates" without direct support.
• Keep reviewer-facing artifacts honest: name limitations, failed runs, missing baselines, and unverified claims.

Review Modes

• structure: argument flow, section order, contribution clarity.
• method: validity of research design, dataset, metric, and comparison.
• evidence: claim support and citation alignment.
• style: clarity, concision, academic tone.
• submission: format, figures, tables, bibliography, reproducibility statement.
• latex-audit: compile, bibliography, figure/table, label/reference, and venue-format checks for existing LaTeX projects.
• related-work: thematic synthesis, comparison, and gap derivation from the SOTA matrix.

Manuscript Workflow

1. Read target venue or artifact requirements.
2. Run npm run workflow:manuscript when available.
3. Read reports/paper/manuscript-ledger.csv, manuscript manifest, accepted frame, paper claim map, citation map, asset map, central BibTeX, and release evidence.
4. Load only relevant project evidence.
5. Make a section plan with claims and required sources.
6. Draft or revise section-by-section.
7. Run citation/claim audit on new or changed claims.
8. Produce unresolved evidence gaps and next checks.

For existing LaTeX/Typst manuscripts, default to diagnosis and comment-style recommendations before source editing. Keep build fixes, bibliography changes, and prose rewrites separate.

Project Quality For LaTeX And Prose

Keep manuscript and LaTeX files under reports/paper/, final figures and tables under outputs/, source evidence under sources/ and sota/, and scratch drafts or audits outside trusted paper-facing outputs. Do not promote text into the manuscript unless citation keys, source IDs, figure/table paths, claim IDs, and unresolved evidence gaps remain traceable.

Review Loop And Handoff

For each manuscript section: plan, draft, audit, review, fix, and re-review until no unsupported claim, stale citation, stale asset, missing caveat, or draft residue remains. Handoff clean manuscripts to paper-submission-lifecycle.

Output

For major revisions, produce:

• summary of changes
• unresolved evidence gaps
• claim/citation audit notes
• suggested next checks
• changed files or sections, if edits were made