# Crypto Paper Writing

> Use when outlining, drafting, restructuring, or completing a cryptography, ZKP, lattice, or security paper from verified claims, proofs, literature, parameters, experiments, artifacts, and venue requirements.

- Skill: `riaomike/crypto-paper-writing` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add riaomike/crypto-paper-writing`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/riaomike/crypto-paper-writing/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Security
- Author: RiaoMike (https://skillmd.com/u/riaomike)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/riaomike/crypto-paper-writing

---


# Crypto Paper Writing

Write from an evidence ledger, not from a desired story. The manuscript may be polished only to the strength of verified claims.

## Scope

In scope: contribution architecture, title/abstract/introduction, preliminaries, construction, theorem/proof presentation, security discussion, parameters/experiments, related work, limitations, ethics/open science, conclusion, LaTeX/Markdown organization, and venue readiness.

Out of scope: inventing results/citations/proofs/experiments, hiding gaps, asserting global novelty, deciding authorship, or submitting without human authorization.

## Required Inputs

- research brief and target audience/venue;
- verified claim-evidence ledger and terminology/security model;
- theorem/proof/reduction status, parameters, experiments/artifacts;
- verified bibliography/related-work synthesis and novelty limitations;
- ethics/disclosure/open-science constraints.

## Success Criteria

- Every abstract/introduction contribution maps to body evidence.
- Definitions, notation, models, assumptions, parameters, and claims are consistent.
- Proof sketches versus full proofs and author claims versus verified evidence are labeled.
- Related work compares closest results fairly and bounds novelty.
- Tables/figures/cost comparisons are reproducible and compatible.
- Limitations, ethics, responsible disclosure, open science, anonymity, conflicts, and AI/human responsibility are handled per current venue policy.
- The manuscript has a clear problem–barrier–insight–result–evidence narrative without overstating significance.

## Failure Modes

- Idea without completed evidence: return a research brief/outline with evidence slots, not a result-bearing manuscript.
- Proof/experiment/citation gap: expose it and block affected claim language.
- Unverified novelty: use bounded search language.
- Unknown/changing venue rules: produce venue-neutral draft and require official policy refresh.
- Conflicting notation/parameters: stop prose propagation until reconciled.

Never fabricate citations, theorem results, proof steps, experiments, statistics, artifacts, reviewer feedback, or venue compliance.

## Workflow

1. Apply [protocol.md](references/protocol.md) to freeze claims/evidence and design the paper architecture.
2. Read [top-venue-gates.md](references/top-venue-gates.md) and verify the current target venue's official rules.
3. Draft sections in dependency order; keep claim/evidence/gap traceability.
4. Run consistency, citation, proof-status, parameter, figure/table, ethics/artifact, anonymity, and venue audits.
5. Return manuscript plus unresolved evidence/decision register.
6. Use [evaluation-scenarios.md](references/evaluation-scenarios.md) for future independent evaluation.

## Output Contract

Return: paper brief; target-venue policy snapshot/date; claim-evidence ledger; detailed outline; manuscript/diff; theorem/proof/experiment/citation status; figures/tables/artifact links; ethics/open-science/limitations text; consistency audit; unresolved blockers; human sign-off checklist.