TS Write

ts-write

Before drafting, read back {PAPER_WORKSPACE}/title.txt, {PAPER_WORKSPACE}/contributions.txt, and {PAPER_WORKSPACE}/keywords.txt from ts-plan — the Introduction and Abstract below build on them directly.

Write one file per section under {PAPER_WORKSPACE}/sections/ (the full absolute path — never a bare relative sections/...), in this fixed order (id — title — evidence to use — target word count — citations allowed). These targets are deliberately close to a real paper's actual length (adapted from spark-to-paper-skills' own recipe) — hit them with genuine detail pulled from the evidence, not filler. If you run out of real content before reaching the minimum, that's a sign the evidence doesn't support a section this long — say less rather than pad with restatement, hedge-phrases, or generic transitions, and note in your final summary that this section's evidence was thin.

1. introduction.tex — Introduction — background evidence — 800-1200 words — yes. End with a lead-in sentence, then \begin{itemize} with exactly 3 \items — one per line of contributions.txt, verbatim or lightly rephrased to fit as a complete sentence — then \end{itemize}. No heading before the list.
2. related_work.tex — Related Work — background evidence — 400-800 words — yes. Organize by theme, never chronology: exactly 3 \subsection{...} (each a distinct thread of prior work relevant to this run), each ending with an explicit one-sentence gap statement ("However, none of these address X, which this run's approach does by Y."). Follow the 3 subsections with a plain closing paragraph, no heading, contrasting the single nearest prior approach.
3. method.tex — Method — objective/hypothesis + method evidence — 2000-3000 words — yes. Structure: \subsection{Problem Formulation} (one framing paragraph) → \subsection{Notation} (only if you use mathematical notation — a small table via \begin{tabular} mapping symbol to meaning; if the evidence has no math, still include this subsection with a one-sentence note that the method is described procedurally, not symbolically) → one \subsection{} per method component named in the evidence → a closing subsection stating the decision rule / objective the method optimizes for, if the evidence names one. If the evidence describes a multi-step procedure, include at least one pseudocode block (a \begin{enumerate} numbered list of steps is fine — do not use algorithm/algorithmic environments unless the evidence itself is already pseudocode-shaped). Include the host-rendered evidence exactly as given if a figure/table is provided in this block, in the subsection it belongs to.
4. experiments.tex — Experiments — results evidence — 1000-1500 words — yes. Exactly 3 \subsection{}s, in this order: Implementation Details (setup/protocol facts from the evidence, one paragraph), Experimental Design (variants/metrics/baselines and why, one paragraph), Results (the host-rendered results table and figure from the evidence, included exactly as given — never redraw them — plus prose grouped by outcome pattern, mentioning every variant and every decision metric named in the evidence, by name).
5. discussion.tex — Discussion — discussion/reflection evidence — 900-1400 words — yes. At least one \subsection{} (e.g. "Limitations and Failure Modes"): ground it in a real caveat from the evidence — a metric that didn't move, a variant that underperformed, a boundary condition the reflection or plan noted. If the evidence reports no failures at all, discuss the conditions under which the result might not generalize instead of inventing a failure.
6. conclusion.tex — Conclusion — discussion evidence — 200-280 words — no citations
7. abstract.tex — Abstract — write this one LAST, from title.txt and the other six section files you just wrote (read them back), not from a primary evidence block — 150-220 words — no citations. Prose only — no \section{...} heading, no heading of any kind. The compile step wraps this file's raw content in a proper \begin{abstract}...\end{abstract} block itself; a heading you add would show up as extra, wrongly-numbered text inside that block.

Hard rules for every section

• Output LaTeX body content only: a \section{...} heading followed by prose (except abstract.tex — see item 7 above, prose only, no heading). The heading text doesn't need to match anything exactly — the compile step replaces it with the canonical title regardless — but include one so the section reads naturally while you're writing it. No \documentclass, \usepackage, \begin{document}, \textbf, or \textit — none of these are allowed in prose (\textbf/\textit in particular: this house style uses no bold/italic emphasis in running text, only in captions). Never put a number at the start of a \section{}/\subsection{} heading (LaTeX numbers headings itself) and never use a markdown code fence (```) anywhere.
• Ground every claim in the evidence you were given. No fabricated numbers, sources, or claims. This run's results are always real and already measured — never hedge with "we expect"/"this should show" for anything already reported as measured. A hyperparameter or design constant quoted from the evidence (e.g. "a learning rate of 0.001") is not a fabricated result and is fine even if it isn't one of the run's reported metrics.
• Cite only with \cite{key} for keys listed in the evidence's citation list. Never invent a key.
• One logical paragraph per physical line — no hand-wrapping mid-sentence.
• Escape LaTeX special characters (_ % & #) in prose you write yourself.
• Never quote non-Latin script verbatim (CJK, Cyrillic, Arabic, etc.) even if it appears in the evidence — the default fonts can't render it. Paraphrase or describe it in English instead.
• Avoid AI-writing tells: "it is worth noting," "plays a crucial/pivotal role," "a testament to," "rich tapestry," "delve into," "the realm of," "ever-evolving," "in today's world," "navigating the landscape," "paradigm shift," "game-changing," "in order to." Punctuate an appositive or enumeration with a colon or em-dash, never a bare comma — "a pipeline: retrieval, planning, execution," not "a pipeline, retrieval, planning, execution, which..." (that bare-comma "comma soup" reads as fragmented, not connected prose).
• The Experiments section must mention every variant and every decision metric named in the evidence, by name.