Paper Plan

Override for Codex users who want Claude Code, not a second Codex agent, to act as the reviewer. Install this package after skills/skills-codex/*.

This reviewer is a different model family from the Codex executor. Every overlay trace/audit records:

review_independence: cross-family
acceptance_status: accepted

Paper Plan: From Review Conclusions to Paper Outline

Generate a structured, section-by-section paper outline from: $ARGUMENTS

Constants

• REVIEWER_MODEL = claude-review — Claude reviewer invoked through the local claude-review MCP bridge. Set CLAUDE_REVIEW_MODEL if you need a specific Claude model override.
• TARGET_VENUE = ICLR — Default venue. User can override (e.g., /paper-plan "topic" — venue: NeurIPS). Supported: ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR, ACL, AAAI, ACM, IEEE_JOURNAL (IEEE Transactions / Letters), IEEE_CONF (IEEE conferences).
• MAX_PAGES — Page limit. For ML conferences: main body to Conclusion end (excluding references, appendix). ICLR=9, NeurIPS=9, ICML=8, AAAI=7 technical-content pages plus references unless the current AAAI CFP says otherwise. For IEEE venues: references ARE included in page count. IEEE journal Transactions ≈ 12-14 pages total, Letters ≈ 4-5 pages total; IEEE conference ≈ 5-8 pages total (including references).

Inputs

The skill expects one or more of these in the project directory:

1. NARRATIVE_REPORT.md or STORY.md — research narrative with claims and evidence
2. review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md — auto-review loop conclusions (fall back to ./AUTO_REVIEW.md if not found)
3. Experiment results — JSON files in figures/, screen logs, tables
4. idea-stage/IDEA_REPORT.md — from idea-discovery pipeline (if applicable) (fall back to ./IDEA_REPORT.md if not found)
5. CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md — structured claim judgment from /result-to-claim (preferred if available)

If none exist, ask the user to describe the paper's contribution in 3-5 sentences.

Orchestra-Guided Writing Overlay

Keep the existing workflow and outputs, but use the shared references below to improve the quality of the story and outline:

• Read ../shared-references/writing-principles.md when framing the Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, or hero figure
• Read ../shared-references/venue-checklists.md before freezing the outline for a specific venue
• Load these references only when they help; they are support material, not a new workflow phase

Workflow

Step 1: Extract Claims and Evidence

First check for CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md — if its first line is verdict: REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE, treat the file as ABSENT for claim extraction (fall through to the narrative documents below) and then: under — assurance: submission (shared-references/assurance-contract.md; implied by — effort: max|beast) STOP — the claims were never adjudicated, rerun /result-to-claim first; under assurance: draft continue but tag every claim [unadjudicated]. Otherwise, if it exists, use it as the starting point for claims and merge it with any additional evidence from the narrative documents below.

Read all available narrative documents and extract:

1. Core claims (3-5 main contributions)
2. Evidence for each claim (which experiments, which metrics, which figures)
3. Known weaknesses (from reviewer feedback)
4. Suggested framing (from review conclusions)

Build a Claims-Evidence Matrix:

| Claim | Evidence | Status | Section |
|-------|----------|--------|---------|
| [claim 1] | [exp A, metric B] | Supported | §3.2 |
| [claim 2] | [exp C] | Partially supported | §4.1 |

Step 2: Determine Paper Type and Structure

Based on TARGET_VENUE and paper content, classify and select structure.

Before committing to a structure, apply the narrative principle from ../shared-references/writing-principles.md:

• The paper should tell one coherent technical story
• By the end of the Introduction, the outline should make the What, Why, and So What explicit
• Front-load the most important material: title, abstract, introduction, and hero figure

IMPORTANT: The section count is FLEXIBLE (5-8 sections). Choose what fits the content best. The templates below are starting points, not rigid constraints.

Empirical/Diagnostic paper:

1. Introduction (1.5 pages)
2. Related Work (1 page)
3. Method / Setup (1.5 pages)
4. Experiments (3 pages)
5. Analysis / Discussion (1 page)
6. Conclusion (0.5 pages)

Theory + Experiments paper:

1. Introduction (1.5 pages)
2. Related Work (1 page)
3. Preliminaries & Modeling (1.5 pages)
4. Experiments (1.5 pages)
5. Theory Part A (1.5 pages)
6. Theory Part B (1.5 pages)
7. Conclusion (0.5 pages)
— Total: 9 pages

Theory papers often need 7 sections (splitting theory into estimation + optimization, or setup + analysis). The total page budget MUST sum to MAX_PAGES.

Theory papers should:

• Include proof sketch locations (not just theorem statements)
• Plan a comparison table of prior theoretical bounds vs. this paper's bounds
• Identify which proofs go in appendix vs. main body

Method paper:

1. Introduction (1.5 pages)
2. Related Work (1 page)
3. Method (2 pages)
4. Experiments (2.5 pages)
5. Ablation / Analysis (1 page)
6. Conclusion (0.5 pages)

Step 3: Section-by-Section Planning

For each section, specify:

### §0 Abstract
- **One-sentence problem**: [what gap this paper addresses]
- **Approach**: [what we do, in one sentence]
- **Key result**: [most compelling quantitative finding]
- **Implication**: [why it matters]
- **Estimated length**: 150-250 words
- **Self-contained check**: can a reader understand this without the paper?

### §1 Introduction
- **Opening hook**: [1-2 sentences that motivate the problem]
- **Gap**: [what's missing in prior work]
- **Key questions**: [the research questions this paper answers]
- **Contributions**: [numbered list, matching Claims-Evidence Matrix]
- **Hero figure**: [describe what Figure 1 should show — MUST include clear comparison if applicable]
- **Estimated length**: 1.5 pages
- **Key citations**: [3-5 papers to cite here]

### §2 Related Work
- **Subtopics**: [2-4 categories of related work]
- **Positioning**: [how this paper differs from each category]
- **Minimum length**: 1 full page (at least 3-4 paragraphs with substantive synthesis)
- **Must NOT be just a list** — synthesize, compare, and position

### §3 Method / Setup / Preliminaries
- **Notation**: [key symbols and their meanings]
- **Problem formulation**: [formal setup]
- **Method description**: [algorithm, model, or experimental design]
- **Formal statements**: [theorems, propositions if applicable]
- **Proof sketch locations**: [which key steps appear here vs. appendix]
- **Estimated length**: 1.5-2 pages

### §4 Experiments / Main Results
- **Figures planned**:
  - Fig 1: [description, type: bar/line/table/architecture, WHAT COMPARISON it shows]
  - Fig 2: [description]
  - Table 1: [what it shows, which methods/baselines compared]
- **Data source**: [which JSON files / experiment results]

### §5 Conclusion
- **Restatement**: [contributions rephrased, not copy-pasted from intro]
- **Limitations**: [honest assessment — reviewers value this]
- **Future work**: [1-2 concrete directions]
- **Estimated length**: 0.5 pages

Step 4: Figure Plan

List every figure and table:

## Figure Plan

| ID | Type | Description | Data Source | Priority |
|----|------|-------------|-------------|----------|
| Fig 1 | Hero/Architecture | System overview + comparison | manual | HIGH |
| Fig 2 | Line plot | Training curves comparison | figures/exp_A.json | HIGH |
| Fig 3 | Bar chart | Ablation results | figures/ablation.json | MEDIUM |
| Table 1 | Comparison table | Main results vs. baselines | figures/main_results.json | HIGH |
| Table 2 | Theory comparison | Prior bounds vs. ours | manual | HIGH (theory papers) |

CRITICAL for Figure 1 / Hero Figure: Describe in detail what the figure should contain, including:

• Which methods are being compared
• What the visual difference should demonstrate
• Caption draft that clearly states the comparison

Step 5: Citation Scaffolding

For each section, list required citations:

## Citation Plan
- §1 Intro: [paper1], [paper2], [paper3] (problem motivation)
- §2 Related: [paper4]-[paper10] (categorized by subtopic)
- §3 Method: [paper11] (baseline), [paper12] (technique we build on)

Citation rules (from claude-scholar + Imbad0202/academic-research-skills):

1. NEVER generate BibTeX from memory — always verify via search or existing .bib files
2. Every citation must be verified: correct authors, year, venue
3. Flag any citation you're unsure about with [VERIFY]
4. Prefer published versions over arXiv preprints when available

Step 6: Cross-Review with REVIEWER_MODEL

Send the complete outline to Claude review for feedback:

mcp__claude-review__review_start:
  prompt: |
    Review this paper outline for a [VENUE] submission.
    [full outline including Claims-Evidence Matrix]

    Score 1-10 on:
    1. Logical flow — does the story build naturally?
    2. Claim-evidence alignment — every claim backed?
    3. Missing experiments or analysis
    4. Positioning relative to prior work
    5. Page budget feasibility (MAX_PAGES = main body to Conclusion end, excluding refs/appendix)

    For each weakness, suggest the MINIMUM fix.
    Be specific and actionable — "add X" not "consider more experiments".

After this start call, immediately save the returned jobId and poll mcp__claude-review__review_status with a bounded waitSeconds until done=true. Treat the completed status payload's response as the reviewer output, and save the completed threadId for any follow-up round.

Apply feedback before finalizing.

Step 7: Output

Save the final outline to PAPER_PLAN.md in the project root:

# Paper Plan

**Title**: [working title]
**Venue**: [target venue]
**Type**: [empirical/theory/method]
**Date**: [today]
**Page budget**: [MAX_PAGES] pages (main body to Conclusion end, excluding references & appendix)
**Section count**: [N] (must match the number of section files that will be created)

## Claims-Evidence Matrix
[from Step 1]

## Structure
[from Step 2-3, section by section]

## Figure Plan
[from Step 4, with detailed hero figure description]

## Citation Plan
[from Step 5]

## Reviewer Feedback
[from Step 6, summarized]

## Next Steps
- [ ] /paper-figure to generate all figures
- [ ] /paper-write to draft LaTeX
- [ ] /paper-compile to build PDF

Key Rules

• Large file handling: If the Write tool fails due to file size, immediately retry using Bash (cat << 'EOF' > file) to write in chunks. Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.

• Do NOT generate author information — leave author block as placeholder or anonymous

• Be honest about evidence gaps — mark claims as "needs experiment" rather than overclaiming

• Page budget is hard — if content exceeds MAX_PAGES, suggest what to move to appendix

• MAX_PAGES counting differs by venue — ML conferences: main body to Conclusion end, references/appendix NOT counted; AAAI main track is typically 7 technical-content pages plus references. IEEE venues: references ARE counted toward the page limit.

• Venue-specific norms — ML conferences (ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML) use natbib (\citep/\citet); IEEE venues use cite package (\cite{}, numeric style)

• Claims-Evidence Matrix is the backbone — every claim must map to evidence, every experiment must support a claim

• Figures need detailed descriptions — especially the hero figure, which must clearly specify comparisons and visual expectations

• Section count is flexible — 5-8 sections depending on paper type. Don't force content into a rigid 5-section template.

Acknowledgements

Outline methodology inspired by Research-Paper-Writing-Skills (claim-evidence mapping), claude-scholar (citation verification), and Imbad0202/academic-research-skills (claim verification protocol).

Output Protocols

Follow these shared protocols for all output files:

• Output Versioning Protocol — write timestamped file first, then copy to fixed name
• Output Manifest Protocol — log every output to MANIFEST.md
• Output Language Protocol — respect the project's language setting