Paper Writing Skills
Mode
Two modes control which files and gates are loaded. Set mode in triage.md during Phase 0.
| Mode |
Default for |
Trigger words (override default) |
report |
all scenarios |
(default — no trigger needed) |
submission |
journal_article, conference_paper, paper_submission, grant_proposal, revision_response |
投稿、submit、journal、conference、SCI、Nature、Cell、NeurIPS、ICLR、grant、基金、申请书、rebuttal、revision、peer review、深度调研、systematic review、meta-analysis |
If any submission trigger word appears in the user request, set mode: submission regardless of scenario. Otherwise default to report.
Routing + Sequential Pipeline
| Phase |
Entry criteria |
Actions |
Exit criteria |
| 0. Triage |
a user request and any UI scenario labels |
Read workflow/SKILL.md ("Triage" section). Choose scenario_id, format_id, theme_id, mode, language, audience, outputs, constraints. |
{workdir}/triage.md exists or is updated |
| 1. Materials and evidence |
triage is known |
Read the chosen scenario file under scenarios/. Inventory materials. submission only: fetch/search papers via paper_fetch.md, build evidence registry (see Evidence Layer below). |
{workdir}/materials/inventory.md; submission: also claim_evidence_map.md |
| 2. Outline + claim boundary |
materials are known |
Read workflow/SKILL.md ("Paper Outline" + "Figure Storyline" sections). submission + novelty claim: also read Knowledge Lineage Audit in scenarios/grant_proposal.md. |
outline |
| 3. Section drafting |
outline exists |
Read writing/SKILL.md. Draft Markdown. |
{workdir}/draft/paper.md |
| 4. Quality gates |
draft exists |
Run gates per mode (see Quality Gates below). |
quality reports under {workdir}/quality/ |
| 5. Editable output |
draft + quality notes exist |
Apply the chosen rendering template + theme per the Editable HTML Contract section below. |
{workdir}/report/<slug>_preview.html |
Scenario Routing
| User intent |
scenario_id |
Required scenario file |
Default mode |
| manuscript, paper submission, write a paper |
paper_submission |
scenarios/paper_submission.md |
submission |
| journal article, SCI, Nature-style paper |
journal_article |
scenarios/journal_article.md |
submission |
| conference paper, workshop paper |
conference_paper |
scenarios/conference_paper.md |
submission |
| grant, proposal, funding application |
grant_proposal |
scenarios/grant_proposal.md |
submission |
| lab report, experiment report |
lab_report |
scenarios/lab_report.md |
report |
| group meeting, weekly report |
group_report |
scenarios/group_report.md |
report |
| conference talk, workshop sharing |
conference_talk / workshop_share |
scenarios/conference_talk.md / scenarios/workshop_share.md |
report |
| reviewer comments, rebuttal, revision response |
revision_response |
scenarios/revision_response.md |
submission |
Family Index
| Layer |
File |
Contents |
| Workflow phases |
workflow/SKILL.md |
9 phases inlined: triage, material inventory, research question, literature review, paper outline, data analysis summary, figure storyline, reader testing, finalize packet |
| Section writing |
writing/SKILL.md |
abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, claim_evidence_check (citation grounding inlined), reviewer_rubric (+ reviewer_rubric_example), response_letter |
| Evidence layer |
inlined below |
paper_fetch, evidence registry, evidence summary, context-bound answering |
| Quality gates |
inlined below |
manuscript coverage, format lint, reproducibility; reporting_guideline_check (clinical) at reporting_guideline_check.md |
| Editable HTML contract |
inlined below |
block shape, attributes, validation pass criteria |
| Themes |
themes/kami_academic.md + themes/kami_academic.css |
warm parchment academic theme |
Scenario Format Index
HTML output for any format must satisfy the Editable HTML Contract below.
format_id |
Scenario file |
Required structure |
Special constraints |
journal_article |
scenarios/journal_article.md |
Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Results, Discussion, Methods, Data Availability, Code Availability, Acknowledgements, References, SI note |
figure/table numbering, data/code statements, guideline checks when applicable |
conference_paper |
scenarios/conference_paper.md |
Title, Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Method, Experiments, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References, Appendix |
page limit, baseline and ablation completeness, optional LaTeX |
grant_application |
scenarios/grant_proposal.md |
title, abstract, background, gap, aims, research content, key scientific questions, technical route, innovation, feasibility, plan, expected outcomes, team, budget, references |
form-like blocks, word limits, aim-route consistency |
lab_report |
scenarios/lab_report.md |
experiment name, date, operator, purpose, materials, steps, raw observations, data processing, results, abnormal events, conclusion, next step |
raw observation separated from interpretation |
group_report |
scenarios/group_report.md |
progress, core question, evidence, current conclusion, blockers, discussion questions, next plan |
scan-friendly, short sections |
conference_talk |
scenarios/conference_talk.md |
opening, audience context, problem, key idea, evidence sequence, takeaway, Q&A, speaker notes |
every figure has a spoken takeaway |
workshop_share |
scenarios/workshop_share.md |
prerequisites, materials, steps, checkpoints, expected outputs, troubleshooting, Q&A |
reproducible from a clean environment |
revision_response |
scenarios/revision_response.md |
Reviewer X Comment Y, Comment, Response, Changes Made, Status |
preserve every comment |
Required Outputs
{workdir}/triage.md{workdir}/draft/paper.md (Markdown source of truth){workdir}/report/<slug>_preview.html{workdir}/quality/claim_evidence_report.md{workdir}/quality/reviewer_report.md — submissions, grants, rebuttals, high-risk tasks only
Rendering Templates
Standard rendering flow
- Read report_standard.md for the HTML+CSS template.
- Convert
draft/paper.md to HTML, wrapping major sections per the Editable HTML Contract below.
- Apply the selected theme. Write
{workdir}/report/<slug>_preview.html.
Academic rendering flow (LaTeX → PDF)
- Read the LaTeX template (
latex_cn.md or latex_en.md based on language).
- Convert
draft/paper.md to LaTeX, fill the template, write <slug>.tex.
- Read COMPILE.md — probe available engines before compiling.
- Also produce an HTML preview via report_academic.md.
Evidence Layer
Evidence skills decide where facts come from. Claims may not be invented or
grounded in model memory; they must trace back to a registered piece of evidence.
| Need |
Where |
| Search and fetch open-access papers by DOI / arXiv / PMID |
paper_fetch.md |
| Register claims and supporting evidence |
Evidence Registry below |
| Ground citations to specific text segments, rerank, attribute sentences |
writing/claim_evidence_check.md ("Citation Grounding" section) |
| Write data and code availability statements |
scenarios/journal_article.md ("Data and Code Availability" section) |
Default pipeline: paper_fetch → evidence_summary → evidence_registry → draft → citation grounding
Evidence Registry — claim_evidence_map.md
| Claim ID |
Claim |
Evidence type |
Source |
Strength |
Risk |
Action |
| C1 |
… |
citation/figure/table/data/user_material/missing |
S001 |
strong |
low |
keep |
Evidence types: citation, figure, table, experimental_data, statistical_result, user_material, missing. Claims with missing evidence cannot appear as firm conclusions. If support is partial, narrow the wording.
Evidence Summary — output table
| Evidence ID |
Source |
Passage/page |
Query answered |
Summary |
Score |
Claim IDs |
Preserve locator detail for later attribution. Separate the source's statement from the agent's interpretation. If evidence does not answer the query, say so; do not force fit.
Context-Bound Answering
Answer only from provided context. Cite context keys, evidence IDs, pages, or material IDs. If context is insufficient, write I cannot answer from the provided context and list what is missing. Do not fall back to model memory.
Quality Gates
Gates produce reports and risk flags — guardrails, not gatekeepers. Flag issues and suggest fixes; do not silently rewrite a draft to hide problems. Aim for ≥80% compliance; prioritize critical issues (missing data, unsupported claims, fabricated citations) over cosmetic formatting.
Run order: manuscript coverage → format lint → reproducibility → claim/evidence → reporting guideline → reviewer simulation → HTML editability → response consistency.
Manuscript Coverage Check
Core sections (required): Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References.
Optional (journal-dependent): Keywords, Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Author Contributions, Competing Interests, Data/Code Availability, Supplementary Materials.
| Section |
Must contain |
| Abstract |
background → gap → method → results → conclusion |
| Introduction |
background → related work → gap → contribution |
| Methods |
design, materials, procedure, parameters, analysis |
| Results |
main findings, figures, tables, statistics, subsections by question |
| Discussion |
interpretation, comparison, limitations, future, take-home |
Output: ## Manuscript Coverage Report with completeness %, present/complete list, missing/incomplete list, recommendation. Gate: ≥90% excellent / 80-89% good / <80% major sections missing.
Format Lint
Check: section structure complete; figure/table numbering sequential with captions; references numbered, no gaps, consistent format; word/page limits met; supplementary files referenced and numbered.
Output: ## Format Lint Report with compliance %, correct categories, issues (severity + location + action), word count vs limit, recommendation.
Common limits (always verify against journal guidelines):
| Journal |
Abstract |
Main text |
Figures |
Refs |
| Nature/Science |
150-200 |
3-4k words |
4-6 |
30-50 |
| Cell |
150 |
5k |
7 |
80 |
| NeurIPS |
250 |
8 pages |
— |
— |
| PLOS ONE |
300 |
none |
none |
none |
Gate: ≥90% excellent / 80-89% fix flagged / <80% major problems.
Reproducibility Check
Audit categories (each must be present and concrete): software & tools (names, versions, OS, libraries); parameters & settings (hyperparameters, seeds, hardware); data (source, version, splits, availability); code (repo URL, license, dependencies, reproducibility script).
Output: ## Reproducibility Check Report with compliance %, sufficient detail list, missing/vague list (current text + fix), availability statement templates, recommendation. Gate: ≥90% excellent / 80-89% good / 70-79% fair / <70% major revision.
Editable HTML Contract
All HTML outputs must be standalone working files, not app-only previews.
<section class="editable-block" contenteditable="true"
data-block-id="abstract-001" data-section="abstract"
data-source="draft/paper.md" data-format-role="summary">
<h2>Abstract</h2><p>…</p>
</section>
Required: single file with embedded CSS; semantic tags (section, figure, figcaption, table, caption); @page or @media print; no frontend runtime required; no absolute positioning for body layout.
| Attribute |
Meaning |
data-block-id |
stable local block identifier |
data-section |
manuscript/report section |
data-source |
source file, usually draft/paper.md |
data-format-role |
summary, claim, evidence, method, response |
Validation (run after every HTML generation): file opens standalone; CSS embedded; main text is semantic HTML not an image; major blocks have contenteditable="true" and all four data-* attributes; print CSS present; figures/tables use semantic tags. If any criterion fails, fix the renderer or source Markdown — do not relax the contract.
Non-Negotiable Rules
- Do not write unsupported claims. Mark missing evidence and downgrade or remove the claim.
- Do not invent citations, DOIs, accession IDs, page numbers, data repositories, reviewer changes, or experimental results.
- Do not let a search result become evidence until it is summarized, attributed, and bound to a specific claim in the Evidence Registry above.
- Do not use Sci-Hub or any access-control bypass. Open PDF fetching may use only legal OA routes in paper_fetch.md.
- Do not output screenshot-like reports. Main text must remain semantic and editable HTML per the Editable HTML Contract above.
- Keep each
SKILL.md below 500 lines.
Sources
1---2name: paper-writing-skills-index3description: Routing and workflow skill family for paper-writing tasks. Covers manuscript drafting, journal and conference papers, grant proposals, lab reports, group-meeting reports, talks, workshop notes, reviewer rebuttals, academic HTML/PDF/LaTeX output with editable-block contracts, citation grounding, evidence checking, and pre-submission quality gates.4---56# Paper Writing Skills78## Mode910Two modes control which files and gates are loaded. Set `mode` in `triage.md` during Phase 0.1112| Mode | Default for | Trigger words (override default) |13|---|---|---|14| `report` | all scenarios | *(default — no trigger needed)* |15| `submission` | journal_article, conference_paper, paper_submission, grant_proposal, revision_response | 投稿、submit、journal、conference、SCI、Nature、Cell、NeurIPS、ICLR、grant、基金、申请书、rebuttal、revision、peer review、深度调研、systematic review、meta-analysis |1617If any submission trigger word appears in the user request, set `mode: submission` regardless of scenario. Otherwise default to `report`.1819| What changes in `submission` mode |20|---|21| Load [paper_fetch.md](./paper_fetch.md) during Phase 1 |22| Load [writing/claim_evidence_check.md](./writing/claim_evidence_check.md) during Phase 4 |23| Load [writing/reviewer_rubric.md](./writing/reviewer_rubric.md) during Phase 4 |24| Load [reporting_guideline_check.md](./reporting_guideline_check.md) during Phase 4 (clinical/observational/systematic review only) |2526## Routing + Sequential Pipeline2728| Phase | Entry criteria | Actions | Exit criteria |29|---|---|---|---|30| 0. Triage | a user request and any UI scenario labels | Read [workflow/SKILL.md](./workflow/SKILL.md) ("Triage" section). Choose `scenario_id`, `format_id`, `theme_id`, `mode`, language, audience, outputs, constraints. | `{workdir}/triage.md` exists or is updated |31| 1. Materials and evidence | triage is known | Read the chosen scenario file under `scenarios/`. Inventory materials. `submission` only: fetch/search papers via [paper_fetch.md](./paper_fetch.md), build evidence registry (see Evidence Layer below). | `{workdir}/materials/inventory.md`; `submission`: also `claim_evidence_map.md` |32| 2. Outline + claim boundary | materials are known | Read [workflow/SKILL.md](./workflow/SKILL.md) ("Paper Outline" + "Figure Storyline" sections). `submission` + novelty claim: also read Knowledge Lineage Audit in [scenarios/grant_proposal.md](./scenarios/grant_proposal.md). | outline |33| 3. Section drafting | outline exists | Read [writing/SKILL.md](./writing/SKILL.md). Draft Markdown. | `{workdir}/draft/paper.md` |34| 4. Quality gates | draft exists | Run gates per mode (see Quality Gates below). | quality reports under `{workdir}/quality/` |35| 5. Editable output | draft + quality notes exist | Apply the chosen rendering template + theme per the Editable HTML Contract section below. | `{workdir}/report/<slug>_preview.html` |3637## Scenario Routing3839| User intent | `scenario_id` | Required scenario file | Default mode |40|---|---|---|---|41| manuscript, paper submission, write a paper | `paper_submission` | [scenarios/paper_submission.md](./scenarios/paper_submission.md) | submission |42| journal article, SCI, Nature-style paper | `journal_article` | [scenarios/journal_article.md](./scenarios/journal_article.md) | submission |43| conference paper, workshop paper | `conference_paper` | [scenarios/conference_paper.md](./scenarios/conference_paper.md) | submission |44| grant, proposal, funding application | `grant_proposal` | [scenarios/grant_proposal.md](./scenarios/grant_proposal.md) | submission |45| lab report, experiment report | `lab_report` | [scenarios/lab_report.md](./scenarios/lab_report.md) | report |46| group meeting, weekly report | `group_report` | [scenarios/group_report.md](./scenarios/group_report.md) | report |47| conference talk, workshop sharing | `conference_talk` / `workshop_share` | [scenarios/conference_talk.md](./scenarios/conference_talk.md) / [scenarios/workshop_share.md](./scenarios/workshop_share.md) | report |48| reviewer comments, rebuttal, revision response | `revision_response` | [scenarios/revision_response.md](./scenarios/revision_response.md) | submission |4950## Family Index5152| Layer | File | Contents |53|---|---|---|54| Workflow phases | [workflow/SKILL.md](./workflow/SKILL.md) | 9 phases inlined: triage, material inventory, research question, literature review, paper outline, data analysis summary, figure storyline, reader testing, finalize packet |55| Section writing | [writing/SKILL.md](./writing/SKILL.md) | abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, claim_evidence_check (citation grounding inlined), reviewer_rubric (+ reviewer_rubric_example), response_letter |56| Evidence layer | inlined below | paper_fetch, evidence registry, evidence summary, context-bound answering |57| Quality gates | inlined below | manuscript coverage, format lint, reproducibility; reporting_guideline_check (clinical) at [reporting_guideline_check.md](./reporting_guideline_check.md) |58| Editable HTML contract | inlined below | block shape, attributes, validation pass criteria |59| Themes | [themes/kami_academic.md](./themes/kami_academic.md) + [themes/kami_academic.css](./themes/kami_academic.css) | warm parchment academic theme |6061## Scenario Format Index6263HTML output for any format must satisfy the Editable HTML Contract below.6465| `format_id` | Scenario file | Required structure | Special constraints |66|---|---|---|---|67| `journal_article` | [scenarios/journal_article.md](./scenarios/journal_article.md) | Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Results, Discussion, Methods, Data Availability, Code Availability, Acknowledgements, References, SI note | figure/table numbering, data/code statements, guideline checks when applicable |68| `conference_paper` | [scenarios/conference_paper.md](./scenarios/conference_paper.md) | Title, Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Method, Experiments, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References, Appendix | page limit, baseline and ablation completeness, optional LaTeX |69| `grant_application` | [scenarios/grant_proposal.md](./scenarios/grant_proposal.md) | title, abstract, background, gap, aims, research content, key scientific questions, technical route, innovation, feasibility, plan, expected outcomes, team, budget, references | form-like blocks, word limits, aim-route consistency |70| `lab_report` | [scenarios/lab_report.md](./scenarios/lab_report.md) | experiment name, date, operator, purpose, materials, steps, raw observations, data processing, results, abnormal events, conclusion, next step | raw observation separated from interpretation |71| `group_report` | [scenarios/group_report.md](./scenarios/group_report.md) | progress, core question, evidence, current conclusion, blockers, discussion questions, next plan | scan-friendly, short sections |72| `conference_talk` | [scenarios/conference_talk.md](./scenarios/conference_talk.md) | opening, audience context, problem, key idea, evidence sequence, takeaway, Q&A, speaker notes | every figure has a spoken takeaway |73| `workshop_share` | [scenarios/workshop_share.md](./scenarios/workshop_share.md) | prerequisites, materials, steps, checkpoints, expected outputs, troubleshooting, Q&A | reproducible from a clean environment |74| `revision_response` | [scenarios/revision_response.md](./scenarios/revision_response.md) | Reviewer X Comment Y, Comment, Response, Changes Made, Status | preserve every comment |7576## Required Outputs7778- `{workdir}/triage.md`79- `{workdir}/draft/paper.md` (Markdown source of truth)80- `{workdir}/report/<slug>_preview.html`81- `{workdir}/quality/claim_evidence_report.md`82- `{workdir}/quality/reviewer_report.md` — submissions, grants, rebuttals, high-risk tasks only8384## Rendering Templates8586| Template | File | Output |87|---|---|---|88| `report_standard` | [report_standard.md](./report_standard.md) | Professional report (Manus-style), HTML+CSS |89| `report_academic` | [report_academic.md](./report_academic.md) | Formal academic paper, HTML+CSS |90| `latex_cn` | [latex_cn.md](./latex_cn.md) | Chinese academic paper, LaTeX → PDF |91| `latex_en` | [latex_en.md](./latex_en.md) | English academic paper, LaTeX → PDF |9293### Standard rendering flow94951. Read [report_standard.md](./report_standard.md) for the HTML+CSS template.962. Convert `draft/paper.md` to HTML, wrapping major sections per the Editable HTML Contract below.973. Apply the selected theme. Write `{workdir}/report/<slug>_preview.html`.9899### Academic rendering flow (LaTeX → PDF)1001011. Read the LaTeX template (`latex_cn.md` or `latex_en.md` based on language).1022. Convert `draft/paper.md` to LaTeX, fill the template, write `<slug>.tex`.1033. Read [COMPILE.md](./COMPILE.md) — probe available engines before compiling.1044. Also produce an HTML preview via [report_academic.md](./report_academic.md).105106---107108## Evidence Layer109110Evidence skills decide where facts come from. Claims may not be invented or111grounded in model memory; they must trace back to a registered piece of evidence.112113| Need | Where |114|---|---|115| Search and fetch open-access papers by DOI / arXiv / PMID | [paper_fetch.md](./paper_fetch.md) |116| Register claims and supporting evidence | Evidence Registry below |117| Ground citations to specific text segments, rerank, attribute sentences | [writing/claim_evidence_check.md](./writing/claim_evidence_check.md) ("Citation Grounding" section) |118| Write data and code availability statements | [scenarios/journal_article.md](./scenarios/journal_article.md) ("Data and Code Availability" section) |119120**Default pipeline**: `paper_fetch → evidence_summary → evidence_registry → draft → citation grounding`121122### Evidence Registry — `claim_evidence_map.md`123124| Claim ID | Claim | Evidence type | Source | Strength | Risk | Action |125|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|126| C1 | … | citation/figure/table/data/user_material/missing | S001 | strong | low | keep |127128Evidence types: `citation`, `figure`, `table`, `experimental_data`, `statistical_result`, `user_material`, `missing`. Claims with `missing` evidence cannot appear as firm conclusions. If support is partial, narrow the wording.129130### Evidence Summary — output table131132| Evidence ID | Source | Passage/page | Query answered | Summary | Score | Claim IDs |133|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|134135Preserve locator detail for later attribution. Separate the source's statement from the agent's interpretation. If evidence does not answer the query, say so; do not force fit.136137### Context-Bound Answering138139Answer only from provided context. Cite context keys, evidence IDs, pages, or material IDs. If context is insufficient, write `I cannot answer from the provided context` and list what is missing. Do not fall back to model memory.140141---142143## Quality Gates144145Gates produce reports and risk flags — guardrails, not gatekeepers. Flag issues and suggest fixes; do not silently rewrite a draft to hide problems. Aim for ≥80% compliance; prioritize critical issues (missing data, unsupported claims, fabricated citations) over cosmetic formatting.146147| Gate | Where | `report` | `submission` |148|---|---|---|---|149| Manuscript coverage | inlined below | ✅ | ✅ |150| Format lint | inlined below | ✅ | ✅ |151| Reproducibility | inlined below | ✅ | ✅ |152| HTML editability | Editable HTML Contract below | ✅ | ✅ |153| Claim / evidence + citation grounding | [writing/claim_evidence_check.md](./writing/claim_evidence_check.md) | ❌ | ✅ |154| Reviewer simulation (NeurIPS-style) | [writing/reviewer_rubric.md](./writing/reviewer_rubric.md) | ❌ | ✅ |155| Reporting guideline (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA) | [reporting_guideline_check.md](./reporting_guideline_check.md) | ❌ | ✅ clinical only |156| Response consistency | [scenarios/revision_response.md](./scenarios/revision_response.md) | ❌ | ✅ revision_response only |157158**Run order**: manuscript coverage → format lint → reproducibility → claim/evidence → reporting guideline → reviewer simulation → HTML editability → response consistency.159160### Manuscript Coverage Check161162Core sections (required): Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References.163Optional (journal-dependent): Keywords, Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Author Contributions, Competing Interests, Data/Code Availability, Supplementary Materials.164165| Section | Must contain |166|---|---|167| Abstract | background → gap → method → results → conclusion |168| Introduction | background → related work → gap → contribution |169| Methods | design, materials, procedure, parameters, analysis |170| Results | main findings, figures, tables, statistics, subsections by question |171| Discussion | interpretation, comparison, limitations, future, take-home |172173Output: `## Manuscript Coverage Report` with completeness %, present/complete list, missing/incomplete list, recommendation. Gate: ≥90% excellent / 80-89% good / <80% major sections missing.174175### Format Lint176177Check: section structure complete; figure/table numbering sequential with captions; references numbered, no gaps, consistent format; word/page limits met; supplementary files referenced and numbered.178179Output: `## Format Lint Report` with compliance %, correct categories, issues (severity + location + action), word count vs limit, recommendation.180181Common limits (always verify against journal guidelines):182183| Journal | Abstract | Main text | Figures | Refs |184|---|---|---|---|---|185| Nature/Science | 150-200 | 3-4k words | 4-6 | 30-50 |186| Cell | 150 | 5k | 7 | 80 |187| NeurIPS | 250 | 8 pages | — | — |188| PLOS ONE | 300 | none | none | none |189190Gate: ≥90% excellent / 80-89% fix flagged / <80% major problems.191192### Reproducibility Check193194Audit categories (each must be present and concrete): software & tools (names, versions, OS, libraries); parameters & settings (hyperparameters, seeds, hardware); data (source, version, splits, availability); code (repo URL, license, dependencies, reproducibility script).195196Output: `## Reproducibility Check Report` with compliance %, sufficient detail list, missing/vague list (current text + fix), availability statement templates, recommendation. Gate: ≥90% excellent / 80-89% good / 70-79% fair / <70% major revision.197198---199200## Editable HTML Contract201202All HTML outputs must be standalone working files, not app-only previews.203204```html205<section class="editable-block" contenteditable="true"206 data-block-id="abstract-001" data-section="abstract"207 data-source="draft/paper.md" data-format-role="summary">208 <h2>Abstract</h2><p>…</p>209</section>210```211212Required: single file with embedded CSS; semantic tags (`section`, `figure`, `figcaption`, `table`, `caption`); `@page` or `@media print`; no frontend runtime required; no absolute positioning for body layout.213214| Attribute | Meaning |215|---|---|216| `data-block-id` | stable local block identifier |217| `data-section` | manuscript/report section |218| `data-source` | source file, usually `draft/paper.md` |219| `data-format-role` | `summary`, `claim`, `evidence`, `method`, `response` |220221**Validation** (run after every HTML generation): file opens standalone; CSS embedded; main text is semantic HTML not an image; major blocks have `contenteditable="true"` and all four `data-*` attributes; print CSS present; figures/tables use semantic tags. If any criterion fails, fix the renderer or source Markdown — do not relax the contract.222223---224225## Non-Negotiable Rules226227- Do not write unsupported claims. Mark missing evidence and downgrade or remove the claim.228- Do not invent citations, DOIs, accession IDs, page numbers, data repositories, reviewer changes, or experimental results.229- Do not let a search result become evidence until it is summarized, attributed, and bound to a specific claim in the Evidence Registry above.230- Do not use Sci-Hub or any access-control bypass. Open PDF fetching may use only legal OA routes in [paper_fetch.md](./paper_fetch.md).231- Do not output screenshot-like reports. Main text must remain semantic and editable HTML per the Editable HTML Contract above.232- Keep each `SKILL.md` below 500 lines.233234## Sources235236- Anthropic skill design — <https://github.com/anthropics/skills/blob/main/skills/skill-creator/SKILL.md>237- Anthropic doc coauthoring — <https://github.com/anthropics/skills/blob/main/skills/doc-coauthoring/SKILL.md>238- Trail of Bits workflow skill design — <https://github.com/trailofbits/skills/blob/main/plugins/workflow-skill-design/skills/designing-workflow-skills/SKILL.md>239- PaperQA evidence RAG — <https://github.com/Future-House/paper-qa>240- OpenScholar attribution — <https://github.com/akariasai/openscholar>241- Nature-style response/figure/citation/data skills — <https://github.com/Yuan1z0825/nature-skills>242- DeepScientist outline/review/rebuttal/writer skills — <https://github.com/ResearAI/DeepScientist>243- Research-Paper-Writing-Skills (Master-cai, MIT) — abstract / introduction / method / results / discussion section guides244- AI-Scientist (SakanaAI, MIT) — NeurIPS-style reviewer rubric245- EQUATOR Network — reporting guideline checklists246- tw93/Kami (MIT) — academic theme
aristoteleo