# Tech Paper Template > Structures a technical paper's full logical skeleton using a thinking-template table (research background, limitations, key idea or goal, challenges, methodology modules, contributions), positions the paper as Technique or New Problem/Setting, and runs a four-point self-consistency check. Use when the user is brainstorming a paper, discussing progress with an advisor, or planning the paper before drafting. Also use for 'paper skeleton', 'paper logic chain', 'thinking template', 'paper-structure planning'. - Skill: `hkustdial/tech-paper-template` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 5 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add hkustdial/tech-paper-template` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/hkustdial/tech-paper-template/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - License: CC-BY-4.0 - Author: hkustdial (https://skillmd.com/u/hkustdial) - Updated: 2026-09-09 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/hkustdial/tech-paper-template --- # Tech Paper Template ## Overview Before drafting any prose, a technical paper needs a full logical skeleton: the research background, the specific limitations of prior work, the key idea or research goal, the technical challenges that prevent a naive solution, the methodology modules that address each challenge, and the contributions that the paper will claim. This skill fills in that skeleton via a standardised thinking-template table, positions the paper type, and runs four self-consistency checks on the logic chain. The output is a filled-in thinking template plus a consistency report. It is suitable for advisor-student brainstorming sessions, weekly progress meetings, and the final planning step before writing begins. It does not draft Introduction prose (use `intro-drafter` for that); it operates at the logical-skeleton layer. ## When to use this skill - Early brainstorming of a paper project. - Weekly progress meeting with an advisor or collaborator. - Pre-drafting planning after `idea-evaluator` returns Strong Accept. - The paper's logic chain feels incoherent and needs an audit. - The user asks for 'paper skeleton', 'paper logic chain', 'thinking template', or 'paper-structure planning'. - The user is unsure whether their paper is Technique or New Problem/Setting. ## When NOT to use this skill - The paper is a benchmark paper. Use `benchmark-paper-template` (separate plugin). - The user needs an Introduction-specific paragraph outline. Use `intro-drafter` (typically run this skill first, then `intro-drafter`). - The user has a written draft and wants review feedback. Use `pre-submission-reviewer`. - The idea itself is not yet vetted. Use `idea-evaluator` first. ## Core procedure ### Step 1: Paper-type positioning See: references/paper-types.md for the positioning criteria and worked examples. Decide Technique versus New Problem/Setting. In Technique, the Key Idea carries the narrative and Our Goal is a short bridge. In New Problem/Setting, Our Goal is the contribution and the Key Idea justifies feasibility. If the user's inputs describe a benchmark, stop and redirect to `benchmark-paper-template` (separate plugin). ### Step 2: Fill the thinking template See: references/thinking-template.md for each template cell's content contract, what a strong cell looks like, and common failure modes. Fill the seven cells: 1. Research background. Scenario, importance, motivation. 2. Limitations 1 through 3 (2 is acceptable; more than 3 is not). 3. Key idea or Our Goal. One sentence. 4. Challenges 1 through 3 (similar cap). 5. Methodology modules. One module per challenge. 6. Contributions (3 or 4, each mapped to a section). If a cell is incomplete given the user's inputs, mark it as a gap with severity. ### Step 3: Run four self-consistency checks See: references/consistency-checks.md for the detailed checking procedure and examples of chain breaks. Run each check: 1. **Limitations to Key Idea**: does the Key Idea or Goal address the stated Limitations? If not, either the Limitations are wrong or the Key Idea is misaligned. 2. **Key Idea to Challenges**: do the Challenges arise naturally from implementing the Key Idea? If not, the challenges are invented to justify modules rather than derived from the idea. 3. **Challenges to Methodology**: does each methodology module address one challenge? If not, there is a module without justification or a challenge without a fix. 4. **Methodology to Contributions**: do the contributions cover each module or experimental result? If not, contributions are vague or promising more than the paper delivers. Every failure is CRITICAL. ### Step 4: Generate methodology outline See: references/thinking-template.md for the methodology-outline template. From the challenges, derive a methodology outline: topic sentence, per-module subsection names, and per-module one-sentence summary. This becomes the skeleton for Section 3 or 4 of the paper. ### Step 5: Integrity gate Before emitting, run the checks in the Integrity gate section below. ### Step 6: Output Emit the filled template plus the consistency report in the Output format below. ## Integrity gate All seven bullets are **[inspection]** class: the LLM verifies each directly from the filled template (counting, pattern-matching, or comparing cells). No user-side attestation required. Before returning the filled template: 1. **[inspection]** Paper-type positioning is consistent with the user's actual contribution (Technique paper not shoehorned into New Problem framing, or vice versa). 2. **[inspection]** Limitations are specific and cited-able, not vague. 3. **[inspection]** Key Idea or Goal is a single sentence a reviewer could quote. 4. **[inspection]** Challenges derive from implementing the Key Idea; they are not invented. 5. **[inspection]** Methodology modules have one-to-one mapping with challenges. 6. **[inspection]** Contributions map to methodology modules and to specific sections. 7. **[inspection]** All four self-consistency checks pass. If any check fails, mark the skeleton as "needs user attention". ## Output format ### 1. Paper-type positioning - Type: - Rationale: ### 2. Thinking template | Stage | Your content | |---|---| | Research background | ... | | Limitation 1 | ... | | Limitation 2 | ... | | Limitation 3 (if applicable) | ... | | Key Idea / Our Goal | ... | | Challenge 1 | ... | | Challenge 2 | ... | | Challenge 3 (if applicable) | ... | | Methodology topic sentence | ... | | Module A (addresses Challenge 1) | ... | | Module B (addresses Challenge 2) | ... | | Module C (addresses Challenge 3) | ... | | Contribution 1 | ... (Section ) | | Contribution 2 | ... (Section ) | | Contribution 3 | ... (Section ) | ### 3. Self-consistency checks - Check 1 Limitations -> Key Idea: - Check 2 Key Idea -> Challenges: - Check 3 Challenges -> Methodology: - Check 4 Methodology -> Contributions: ### 4. Severity summary - CRITICAL, MAJOR, MINOR. - Top three fixes first: ... ### 5. Next suggested skill - If all checks pass: `intro-drafter` to produce the Introduction paragraph outline. - If checks fail: address the flagged chain breaks first.