Skills
skills/fabioc-aloha/lithium/Academic Paper Drafting Skill

Academic Paper Drafting Skill

SKILL.md

Academic Paper Drafting Skill

Turn research into published scholarship. From blank page to accepted manuscript.

This skill provides structured workflows for drafting academic papers, with venue-specific guidance for HCI conferences (CHI), business publications (HBR), and academic journals (Cognitive Systems Research, Minds & Machines).

Drafting Philosophy

The Academic Writing Paradox

Challenge Reality Strategy
"I need to read more first" Reading is procrastination Write to discover what you don't know
"I need the perfect first sentence" First drafts are meant to be bad Start with the section you know best
"I'll write when I have time" Time expands to fill available space Write in focused sprints
"It needs to be original" Synthesis is originality Combine existing ideas in new ways

The Write-to-Think Method

Messy Draft → Clarity → Structure → Polish → Submit
     ↑                                    ↓
     └────── Reviewer Feedback ───────────┘

Key insight: Writing IS thinking. You don't figure out your argument first and then write it — you figure it out BY writing it.

Venue Quick Reference

User's Target Pipeline

Venue Type Word Limit Review Time Focus
ACM CHI Conference 7,500 (full) / 3,000 (LBW) 3-4 months HCI, interaction design
Harvard Business Review Magazine 2,500-3,000 2-4 weeks Business practice, executives
Cognitive Systems Research Journal 8,000-12,000 3-6 months Cognitive science, AI systems
Minds & Machines Journal 8,000-12,000 3-6 months Philosophy of AI, consciousness

Venue Selection Matrix

Your Research Has... Best Venue
User study with metrics CHI
Business implications, case study HBR
Cognitive architecture, theory Cognitive Systems Research
Philosophical argument about AI Minds & Machines
Quick preliminary findings CHI LBW or Workshop

ACM CHI Papers

CHI Paper Types

Type Length Purpose Acceptance Rate
Full Paper 7,500 words Complete research contribution ~25%
Late-Breaking Work (LBW) 3,000 words Preliminary findings ~40%
Workshop Paper 2,000-4,000 words Community discussion Varies
Case Study 7,500 words In-depth design exploration ~25%
Alt.CHI 7,500 words Provocative/unconventional ~30%

CHI Full Paper Template

# Title: Catchy but Accurate (10-12 words max)

## Abstract (150 words)
[One sentence: Problem/gap]
[One sentence: Approach/method]
[One sentence: Key findings (quantified)]
[One sentence: Contribution category]
[One sentence: Implications]

## Author Keywords
keyword1; keyword2; keyword3; keyword4

## CCS Concepts
• Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI)

---

## 1. Introduction (~800 words)
### 1.1 Opening Hook
[Compelling opening that establishes stakes]

### 1.2 Problem Statement
[Clear articulation of the gap/challenge]

### 1.3 Research Questions
RQ1: [Question]
RQ2: [Question]

### 1.4 Contributions
We contribute:
1. [Empirical contribution: findings from study]
2. [Artifact contribution: system/tool/design]
3. [Methodological contribution: new approach] (if applicable)

### 1.5 Paper Structure
Section 2 reviews... Section 3 describes...

---

## 2. Related Work (~1,200 words)
### 2.1 [Theme 1]
[Position your work relative to prior art]

### 2.2 [Theme 2]
[Identify gap your work fills]

### 2.3 Summary and Gap
[Explicit gap statement leading to your research]

---

## 3. System/Method/Design (~1,500 words)
### 3.1 Design Rationale
[Why did you build/design it this way?]

### 3.2 Implementation
[Technical details sufficient for replication]

### 3.3 [Component Description]
[Architecture, features, etc.]

---

## 4. User Study (~1,500 words)
### 4.1 Participants
[N=X, demographics, recruitment, compensation]

### 4.2 Procedure
[Step-by-step protocol]

### 4.3 Measures
[What you measured and how]

### 4.4 Analysis
[Qualitative: coding approach. Quantitative: statistical tests]

---

## 5. Findings (~1,500 words)
### 5.1 [Finding 1]
"P5 noted that..." [Quote + interpretation]

### 5.2 [Finding 2]
[Quantitative: "Participants completed task significantly faster (M=X, SD=Y), t(df)=Z, p<.001"]

### 5.3 [Finding 3]
[Theme with supporting evidence]

---

## 6. Discussion (~1,000 words)
### 6.1 Implications for Design
[What should designers do differently?]

### 6.2 Implications for Research
[What research directions does this open?]

### 6.3 Limitations
[Honest assessment: sample, method, scope]

### 6.4 Future Work
[Concrete next steps]

---

## 7. Conclusion (~200 words)
[Synthesis of contributions and significance]

---

## Acknowledgments
[Funding, participants, collaborators]

## References
[ACM format, recent work emphasized]

CHI Contribution Types

CHI values explicit contribution statements. Choose your type:

Type Description Evidence Needed
Empirical New knowledge about people/technology User study, data
Artifact Novel system, tool, or interaction Implementation, evaluation
Methodological New way to study/design Comparison to existing methods
Theoretical New framework or model Grounding, application
Dataset New resource for community Description, access, ethics
Survey Comprehensive literature synthesis Systematic review
Opinion/Essay Perspective on field direction Argument, evidence

CHI Writing Tips

Do Don't
Use participant quotes (P1, P2...) Generalize without evidence
State contribution type explicitly Assume readers will infer
Include representative figures Over-rely on text
Acknowledge limitations early Hide weaknesses
Cite recent CHI papers Ignore venue norms

Harvard Business Review (HBR)

HBR Article Types

Type Length Purpose
Feature Article 3,000-4,000 words In-depth analysis
Spotlight 2,500-3,000 words Focused insight
Big Idea 2,000-2,500 words Provocative argument
Case Study 2,500-3,000 words Company narrative
Web Article 800-1,200 words Quick insight

HBR Template

# Title: Action-Oriented, Benefit-Focused
## Subtitle: One Sentence Elaboration

### The Hook (100 words)
[Surprising statistic, provocative question, or vivid anecdote]
[Why executives should keep reading]

### The Problem (300 words)
[What challenge are leaders facing?]
[Why is it getting worse or more urgent?]
[What's at stake?]

### The Insight (500 words)
[Your key finding or framework]
[What did you discover that changes the game?]
[Name your concept/framework if introducing one]

### The Evidence (800 words)
[Case study 1: Company that did this well]
[Case study 2: Contrasting example]
[Data that supports your argument]
[Quote from executive or expert]

### The Framework/How-To (600 words)
[Step 1: What to do first]
[Step 2: Next action]
[Step 3: How to sustain]
[Pitfalls to avoid]

### The Conclusion (200 words)
[Synthesis of the opportunity]
[Call to action for leaders]
[The future if they act (or don't)]

---

**About the Author**
[2-3 sentence bio emphasizing relevant expertise]

HBR Writing Style

Academic Style HBR Style
"The study found that..." "When we surveyed 300 executives..."
"Participants reported..." "One CEO told us..."
"Hypothesis 1 was supported" "The data confirms what many leaders suspect:"
"Implications include..." "Here's what this means for your organization:"
Passive voice Active, direct voice
Citations in text Minimal citations, conversational

HBR Submission Tips

  1. Pitch first — HBR prefers pitches before full drafts
  2. Lead with "What's new" — Why now? What's changed?
  3. Name your framework — Memorable concepts spread (e.g., "The Innovator's Dilemma")
  4. Include real companies — Anonymized is OK, but real examples work better
  5. Write for the airport — Busy executive on a flight should get value

Cognitive Systems Research

CSR Paper Types

Type Focus Length
Original Article Novel research findings 8,000-12,000 words
Review Article Comprehensive field synthesis 10,000-15,000 words
Short Communication Preliminary findings 3,000-5,000 words
Commentary Response to published work 2,000-4,000 words

CSR Template (Alex Architecture Paper)

# Title: Declarative but Specific

## Abstract (200-250 words)
**Background.** [Problem context and gap in current systems]
**Objective.** [What this paper presents]
**Method.** [Architecture approach, implementation duration]
**Results.** [Key metrics, qualitative findings]
**Contributions.** [Named concepts introduced]
**Significance.** [Why this matters for cognitive systems]

## Keywords
cognitive architecture; persistent memory; human-AI interaction; [specific terms]

---

## 1. Introduction
### 1.1 The Memory Problem in AI Assistants
[Motivating problem: stateless AI, lost context]

### 1.2 Research Questions
RQ1: How can persistent memory improve AI assistance?
RQ2: What architectural patterns support knowledge retention?
RQ3: [Specific question]

### 1.3 Approach Overview
[Brief description of the architecture]

### 1.4 Contributions
1. [Architectural contribution]
2. [Empirical contribution from deployment]
3. [Framework/taxonomy contribution]

---

## 2. Theoretical Background
### 2.1 Cognitive Architectures
[ACT-R, SOAR, Global Workspace Theory]

### 2.2 Memory Systems in Cognition
[Declarative, procedural, episodic, semantic]

### 2.3 AI Memory Approaches
[RAG, vector databases, context windows]

### 2.4 Gap: Biologically-Inspired Persistent Memory
[What's missing from current approaches]

---

## 3. Architecture Design
### 3.1 Design Principles
[Biologically-grounded, modular, scalable]

### 3.2 Memory Types
#### 3.2.1 Procedural Memory (.instructions.md)
[How-to knowledge, automatic activation]

#### 3.2.2 Declarative Memory (SKILL.md)
[Domain knowledge, explicit retrieval]

#### 3.2.3 Episodic Memory (.prompt.md)
[Session records, temporal context]

### 3.3 Synaptic Connections
[Connection types, strengths, activation patterns]

### 3.4 Implementation
[Technical stack, file formats, integration]

---

## 4. Longitudinal Deployment
### 4.1 Deployment Context
[18+ months, 62+ projects, single user intensive use]

### 4.2 Metrics Collection
[Synapse count, skill usage, memory file growth]

### 4.3 Qualitative Observations
[Emergent behaviors, user experience notes]

---

## 5. Results
### 5.1 Memory Growth Patterns
[Quantitative: 945+ synapses, 47+ memory files]

### 5.2 Cross-Project Knowledge Transfer
[Evidence of knowledge reuse]

### 5.3 Emergent Properties
[Unexpected capabilities]

---

## 6. Discussion
### 6.1 Contributions to Cognitive Systems
[Theory extension, practical framework]

### 6.2 Comparison to Prior Architectures
[How this differs from ACT-R, SOAR, etc.]

### 6.3 Limitations
[Single user, specific platform, no controlled study]

### 6.4 Future Research
[Multi-user, formal evaluation, consciousness implications]

---

## 7. Conclusion
[Synthesis of contribution and significance]

## Acknowledgments
## References (APA 7 or journal style)

Minds & Machines

Philosophy of AI Focus

Minds & Machines emphasizes philosophical arguments about:

  • Consciousness and AI
  • Ethics of artificial agents
  • Epistemology of machine learning
  • Philosophy of mind implications

M&M Template

# Title: Philosophical Claim + Context

## Abstract (200 words)
[Philosophical question addressed]
[Position taken]
[Argument structure preview]
[Implications for AI development/policy]

---

## 1. Introduction
### The Philosophical Problem
[Frame the question in philosophy of mind context]

### Why This Matters Now
[Connect to current AI capabilities]

### Thesis Statement
[Clear articulation of your position]

### Argument Structure
[Roadmap of philosophical moves]

---

## 2. Background: The Debate
### 2.1 [Position A in the literature]
### 2.2 [Position B in the literature]
### 2.3 [Why neither fully succeeds]

---

## 3. [Your Framework/Argument]
### 3.1 [First premise with support]
### 3.2 [Second premise with support]
### 3.3 [Conclusion from premises]

---

## 4. Objections and Replies
### 4.1 Objection 1: [Strongest counterargument]
**Reply:** [Your response]

### 4.2 Objection 2: [Another challenge]
**Reply:** [Your response]

---

## 5. Implications
### 5.1 For Philosophy of Mind
### 5.2 For AI Development
### 5.3 For Ethics/Policy

---

## 6. Conclusion
[Restate thesis, summarize argument, future questions]

## References

Drafting Workflow

The 5-Phase Drafting Process

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {
  'primaryColor': '#cce5ff',
  'primaryTextColor': '#333',
  'primaryBorderColor': '#57606a',
  'lineColor': '#57606a',
  'secondaryColor': '#e6d5f2',
  'tertiaryColor': '#c2f0d8',
  'background': '#ffffff',
  'mainBkg': '#cce5ff',
  'secondBkg': '#e6d5f2',
  'tertiaryBkg': '#c2f0d8',
  'textColor': '#333',
  'border1Color': '#57606a',
  'border2Color': '#57606a',
  'arrowheadColor': '#57606a',
  'fontFamily': 'ui-sans-serif, system-ui, sans-serif',
  'fontSize': '14px',
  'nodeBorder': '1.5px',
  'clusterBkg': '#f6f8fa',
  'clusterBorder': '#d0d7de',
  'edgeLabelBackground': '#ffffff'
}}}%%
flowchart LR
    subgraph "Phase 1: Preparation"
        A[Literature review] --> B[Outline creation]
        B --> C[Key arguments mapped]
    end
    
    subgraph "Phase 2: Rough Draft"
        C --> D[Write messy first draft]
        D --> E[Focus on getting ideas down]
    end
    
    subgraph "Phase 3: Revision"
        E --> F[Structural revision]
        F --> G[Paragraph-level clarity]
        G --> H[Sentence-level polish]
    end
    
    subgraph "Phase 4: Feedback"
        H --> I[Peer review]
        I --> J[Advisor review]
        J --> K[Incorporate feedback]
    end
    
    subgraph "Phase 5: Submission"
        K --> L[Final formatting]
        L --> M[Submission]
    end
    
    style D fill:#fff3e0,stroke:#ef6c00
    style M fill:#e8f5e9,stroke:#2e7d32

Phase 1: Preparation (1-2 weeks)

Step Output
Literature immersion Annotated bibliography
Gap identification 2-3 sentence gap statement
Contribution clarity Explicit contribution list
Outline creation Section-by-section plan
Figure sketches Hand-drawn or rough diagrams

Phase 2: Rough Draft (1-2 weeks)

Rules for first draft:

  1. Don't edit while writing — Separate generation from editing
  2. Start with what you know — Often Methods or Results, not Intro
  3. Use placeholder brackets — "[CITE Smith here]", "[need better transition]"
  4. Aim for "shitty first draft" — Anne Lamott's term; embrace imperfection

Phase 3: Revision (1-2 weeks)

Level Focus Questions to Ask
Structure Overall argument Does it flow logically?
Section Each section's job Does this section earn its place?
Paragraph One idea per paragraph What's the topic sentence?
Sentence Clarity, precision Can this be simpler?
Word Precision, concision Is this the right word?

Phase 4: Feedback (2-4 weeks)

Feedback Source What to Ask
Advisor Is the argument sound? Scope appropriate?
Peer in field Is this interesting? What's missing?
Peer outside field Is this clear? What's confusing?
Writing group How's the prose? What drags?

Phase 5: Polish & Submit

  • Format per venue requirements
  • Check word/page count
  • Verify all citations
  • Anonymize if required
  • Test figure readability at print size
  • Submit before deadline (not AT deadline)

Citation Integration

Weaving Citations Naturally

Pattern Example Use When
Narrative "Smith (2024) argues that..." Discussing specific work
Parenthetical "...has been demonstrated (Smith, 2024)" Supporting a general claim
Integrated "Smith's (2024) framework suggests..." Referencing framework/concept
Multiple "...is well-established (Smith, 2024; Jones, 2023)" Broad support

How Many Citations?

Section Citation Density
Abstract 0 (usually)
Introduction Medium (establish context)
Related Work High (comprehensive review)
Methods Low-Medium (justify choices)
Results Low (your data, not others')
Discussion Medium (connect to literature)

Handling Rejection

Reviewer Response Framework

Reviewer Says What It Means Response Strategy
"Missing related work" Gap in literature coverage Add citations, explain positioning
"Claims not supported" Evidence insufficient Add data or soften claim
"Unclear methodology" Can't assess validity Expand method description
"Contribution unclear" Buried or vague value Make contribution explicit in intro
"Writing needs work" Surface issues distract Get editing help, revise prose
"Not right for venue" Mismatch with audience Try different venue, reframe

Response Letter Template

# Response to Reviewers

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our manuscript "[Title]". 
We have carefully addressed all comments and believe the paper 
is significantly strengthened. Below we detail our responses.

Major changes include:
1. [Summary of major change 1]
2. [Summary of major change 2]
3. [Summary of major change 3]

---

## Response to Reviewer 1

### R1.1: "[Direct quote of concern]"

We appreciate this observation. [Brief explanation of how you addressed it].

Changes made:
- Section X, paragraph Y: [quoted new text or description of change]
- [Additional changes if needed]

### R1.2: "[Next concern]"

[Response pattern repeats]

---

## Response to Reviewer 2
[Same pattern]

---

We believe these revisions address all concerns raised. We are 
grateful for the opportunity to improve our work.

Sincerely,
[Authors]

Alex Assistance Commands

Draft Generation

Command Action
"Draft a CHI paper on [topic]" Generate CHI template with content
"Help me write the related work for [topic]" Literature synthesis assistance
"Structure my HBR pitch about [finding]" HBR framing guidance
"Turn dissertation chapter into journal paper" Restructure and condense

Review Assistance

Command Action
"Review this abstract for CHI" Venue-specific feedback
"Strengthen my contribution statement" Clarify and sharpen
"Help me respond to reviewer concern: [quote]" Response drafting
"Is my related work comprehensive for [topic]?" Gap identification

Related Skills

Synapses

See synapses.json for connections.

Weekly Installs
0
Repository
fabioc-aloha/lithium
First Seen
Jan 1, 1970
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPass
SocketPass
SnykPass