paper-writing
Paper Writing
A systematic 11-step workflow for writing academic papers, with section-specific templates and battle-tested writing principles.
When to Use This Skill
- User asks to write or draft a paper or paper section
- User needs LaTeX templates for Abstract, Introduction, Method, Experiments, etc.
- User wants to improve academic writing quality
- User mentions "paper writing", "write introduction", "draft method section", etc.
Artifact Sources
If you used upstream EvoSkills, pull these artifacts before writing:
| Source Skill | Artifact | Used In |
|---|---|---|
paper-planning |
Story summary (task → challenge → insight → contribution → advantage) | Steps 1-2 (Introduction writing plan) |
paper-planning |
Module Motivation Mapping table | Step 3 (Method subsections) |
paper-planning |
Experiment plan (comparisons + ablations + demos) | Step 5 (Experiments section) |
paper-planning |
Pipeline figure sketch | Steps 1, 6 (Method overview figure) |
paper-planning |
Claim-to-experiment mapping | Steps 2, 5 (Abstract, Introduction, Experiments) |
paper-planning |
Fallback narrative (if planned) | Steps 7-8 (Introduction / Conclusion pivot) |
experiment-pipeline |
Stage 1-4 results, ablation tables, trajectory logs | Step 5 (write experiments) |
experiment-craft |
Failure analysis, implementation tricks | Step 3 (Method section), Step 9 (limitations) |
The 11-Step Writing Process
Follow these steps in order. Each step builds on the previous one.
- Draw a pipeline figure sketch — Sketch the method's pipeline figure to clarify the overall approach. The figure highlights novelty, not just explanation.
- Design the story and plan experiments — Outline the paper's story (core contribution, module motivations). List comparison experiments and ablation studies. Draft an Introduction writing plan.
- Write Method — Organize the Method writing plan, then draft Method. Run experiments in parallel.
- Revise Introduction and Method — Iterate on both sections while experiments continue.
- Write Experiments — Once experiments are mostly done, organize the Experiments writing plan, then draft.
- Polish figures — Finalize the pipeline figure. Create the teaser figure.
- Write Related Work — List related papers, group into topics, write paragraphs.
- Review the paper — Self-review Introduction, Method, and Experiments. Use the
paper-reviewskill. - Write Abstract — Organize the Abstract writing plan, then draft.
- Choose the title — List important keywords, then compose an informative title.
- Iterate — Repeatedly review and revise the entire paper.
Counterintuitive Writing Rules
Apply these rules when aiming for higher acceptance probability:
- Underclaim in prose, overdeliver in evidence: Reduce adjective intensity in Abstract/Introduction; let tables and figures carry the strength.
- State one meaningful limitation early: A controlled limitation statement increases credibility and lowers reviewer suspicion.
- Lead with mechanism, not only metric: Explain why the method works before listing numbers; reviewers trust causal logic more than isolated gains.
- Prefer one decisive figure over many average figures: Build one "cannot-ignore" figure that validates the central claim under hard conditions.
- Remove weak but flashy claims: Any claim without direct evidence should be deleted, even if it sounds impressive.
- Declare scope boundaries explicitly: One sentence in Introduction and Conclusion stating what your method targets reduces reviewer fear of hidden assumptions.
- Show one failure case: Include one representative failure with diagnosis — it signals competence, not weakness.
See references/counterintuitive-writing.md for all 7 tactics with before/after examples.
Section Quick Reference
Abstract
Answer these questions before drafting:
- What technical problem do we solve, and why is there no well-established solution?
- What is our technical contribution?
- Why does our method fundamentally work?
- What is our technical advantage / new insight?
Three template versions: challenge-first, insight-bridge, multi-contribution. See references/abstract-templates.md
Introduction
Thinking process (reverse then forward):
- Reverse: (1) What is the technical problem? (2) What are our contributions? (3) Benefits and new insights? (4) How to lead into the challenge?
- Forward: (1) Task → (2) Previous methods → challenge → (3) Our contributions → (4) Technical advantages and insights
Four ways to introduce the task, three ways to present challenges, four ways to describe the pipeline. See references/introduction-templates.md
Anti-pattern: Never write "here is a naive solution, then our improvement" — this makes the work appear incremental.
Method
Every pipeline module needs three elements:
- Module design — Data structure, network design, forward process (given X input, step 1..., step 2..., output Y)
- Motivation — Why this module exists (problem-driven: "A remaining challenge is...")
- Technical advantages — Why this module works well
Start with an Overview paragraph (setting + core contribution + section roadmap), then one subsection per module. See references/method-templates.md
Experiments
Three key questions to answer:
- How to prove our method is better → comparison experiments
- How to prove our modules are effective → ablation studies
- How to showcase the method's upper limit → demos on challenging data
Ablation studies need: one big table (core contributions) + several small tables (design choices, hyperparameters). See references/experiments-guide.md
Related Work
Three-step process:
- List papers closely related to our method (most important — missing key references can cause rejection)
- Determine topics based on research direction and algorithm techniques
- Organize writing plan based on listed papers
See references/related-work-guide.md
Conclusion
- Must include Limitation section (reviewers frequently cite "no limitation" as a weakness)
- Limitation = task goal / setting limitations (like future work), NOT technical defects
- Rule: "If our method does not fall below current SOTA metrics, it is not a technical defect"
Supplementary Material
For page-limited venues, decide what goes in main paper vs. supplementary:
- Core evidence for claims must stay in the main paper
- Implementation details, extra ablations, full visual galleries go in supplementary
- Reference supplementary at the point of need, not as a blanket statement
See references/supplementary-guide.md
Core Writing Principles
- One message per paragraph — Each paragraph conveys exactly one point
- Topic sentence first — The first sentence tells readers what this paragraph is about
- Plan before writing — Outline the writing plan, refine each part, then write English sentences
- Flow between sentences — Ensure logical continuity between consecutive sentences
- Terminology consistency — Use the same term throughout; do not alternate names
- Reverse-outlining — After writing, extract the outline from paragraphs; check if the flow is smooth
- Iterate relentlessly — Polish repeatedly, asking whether readers can follow
See references/writing-principles.md
Key Insight
Visual polish directly influences review outcomes. See the paper-planning skill's figure-design.md for the full visual quality guide.
Paper Title Guidelines
- The title attracts specific reviewers — choose keywords carefully
- Before writing the title, list important keywords, then compose
- Title must be informative: include the technique, task, or problem solved
- Avoid generic titles; specific phrases are more memorable
LaTeX Assets
- assets/paper-skeleton.tex — Annotated LaTeX skeleton with section structure
- assets/table-style.tex — Booktabs table macros with color highlighting
Handoff to Review
Before invoking paper-review, verify this checklist:
- All sections (Abstract, Introduction, Method, Experiments, Related Work, Conclusion) drafted
- Every claim in Abstract/Introduction anchored to a table or figure
- Limitation section present in Conclusion
- Pipeline figure and teaser figure finalized
- All
\todo{}markers resolved or removed
Section Navigation
| Section | Reference File | When to Load |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract | abstract-templates.md | Step 9: Writing abstract |
| Introduction | introduction-templates.md | Step 2: Story design |
| Method | method-templates.md | Step 3: Writing method |
| Experiments | experiments-guide.md | Step 5: Writing experiments |
| Related Work | related-work-guide.md | Step 7: Writing related work |
| Writing Principles | writing-principles.md | Any time during writing |
| Supplementary | supplementary-guide.md | Deciding main vs. supplementary content |
| Counterintuitive strategy | counterintuitive-writing.md | Improving reviewer trust and novelty perception |
| Writing Practice | writing-practice.md | Building writing ability through deliberate practice |
More from evoscientist/evoskills
paper-review
Guides self-review of YOUR OWN academic paper before submission with adversarial stress-testing. Core method: 5-aspect checklist (contribution sufficiency, writing clarity, results quality, testing completeness, method design), counterintuitive protocol (reject-first simulation, delete unsupported claims, score trust, promote limitations, attack novelty), reverse-outlining, and figure/table quality checks. Use when: user wants to self-review or self-check their own paper draft before submission, stress-test their claims, prepare for reviewer criticism, or mentions 'self-review', 'check my draft', 'is my paper ready'. Do NOT use for writing a peer review of someone else's paper, and do NOT use after receiving actual reviews (use paper-rebuttal instead).
265paper-rebuttal
Guides writing effective rebuttals after receiving peer review feedback. Covers review diagnosis (score-driven color-coding), response strategy (champion identification, common-theme consolidation), tactical writing (18 rules), and counterintuitive rebuttal principles. Use when: user received reviewer scores/comments, needs to write a rebuttal or author response, wants to respond to specific criticism (e.g. 'limited novelty', 'missing baselines'), mentions 'rebuttal', 'reviewer comments', 'author response', or 'respond to reviewers'. Do NOT use for pre-submission self-review (use paper-review instead).
244paper-planning
Guides pre-writing planning for academic papers with 4 structured steps: story design (task-challenge-insight-contribution-advantage), experiment planning (comparisons + ablations), figure design (pipeline + teaser), and 4-week timeline management. Includes counterintuitive planning tactics (write a mock rejection letter to identify weaknesses before writing, narrow before broad claims, design ablations first). Use when: user wants to plan a paper before writing, design story/contributions, plan experiments, create figure sketches, set a writing timeline, or write a pre-emptive rejection letter for planning purposes. Do NOT use for actual writing (use paper-writing), running experiments (use experiment-pipeline), self-reviewing a finished draft (use paper-review), or finding research problems (use research-ideation).
239research-ideation
End-to-end research ideation pipeline: literature grounding → multi-track idea generation (3 personas: innovator/pragmatist/critic) → iterative refinement → ELO tournament ranking → update evo-memory (IDE) → user selects direction → expand into manuscript-quality proposal. Use when: user wants to find a research direction, brainstorm ideas, evaluate idea novelty, design a novel solution, rank/compare research ideas, or generate a research proposal. Do NOT use for finding/searching/reading papers (use paper-navigator), literature survey reports (use research-survey), or planning a paper (use paper-planning).
235experiment-pipeline
Guides structured 4-stage experiment execution with attempt budgets and gate conditions: Stage 1 initial implementation (reproduce baseline), Stage 2 hyperparameter tuning, Stage 3 proposed method validation, Stage 4 ablation study. Integrates with evo-memory (load prior strategies, trigger IVE/ESE) and experiment-craft (5-step diagnostic on failure). Use when: user has a planned experiment, needs to reproduce baselines, organize experiment workflow, or systematically validate a method. Do NOT use for debugging a specific experiment failure (use experiment-craft) or designing which experiments to run (use paper-planning).
229evo-memory
Manages persistent research memory across ideation and experimentation cycles. Maintains two stores: Ideation Memory M_I (feasible/unsuccessful directions) and Experimentation Memory M_E (reusable strategies for data processing, model training, architecture, debugging). Three evolution mechanisms: IDE (after research-ideation), IVE (after experiment failure — classifies failures as implementation vs fundamental), ESE (after experiment success — extracts reusable strategies). Use when: updating memory after completing research-ideation cycles or experiment pipelines, classifying why a method failed (implementation vs fundamental failure), starting a new research cycle needing prior knowledge, user mentions 'update memory', 'classify failure', 'what worked before', 'research history', 'evolution'. Do NOT use for running experiments (use experiment-pipeline), debugging experiment code (use experiment-craft), or generating ideas (use research-ideation).
225