Paragraph Curator

Paragraph Curator (select -> evaluate -> subset -> fuse)

Purpose: turn “keep rewriting and getting longer” into a controlled convergence step.

This skill adds a decision layer between “draft paragraphs” and “polish voice”:

• keep the best paragraphs
• merge redundant ones
• rewrite for clearer argument moves
• expand only when coverage is missing (using existing evidence cards)

This is a content-structure pass (not a style pass). Run style-harmonizer and opener-variator after curation.

Inputs

Required:

• sections/ (especially H3 bodies: sections/S<sub_id>.md)
• outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl (what each H3 must cover + allowed citations)
• output/ARGUMENT_SKELETON.md (single source of truth for terminology + premises)

Recommended:

• output/SECTION_ARGUMENT_SUMMARIES.jsonl (paragraph moves + outputs)
• output/SECTION_LOGIC_REPORT.md (paragraph linkage risks)
• output/WRITER_SELFLOOP_TODO.md (style smells / scope/citation warnings)

Outputs

• Updated sections/*.md (same filenames; body-only; no headings)
• output/PARAGRAPH_CURATION_REPORT.md (short; PASS/FAIL + what changed)
• Create sections/paragraphs_curated.refined.ok when done (empty file; pipeline contract signal)

What this skill optimizes (rubric)

You are not trying to “shorten”. You are trying to increase information density while keeping the section verifiable.

Score each paragraph on a simple 0-2 rubric:

Decision labels:

• KEEP: keep mostly as-is
• REWRITE: keep content, rewrite for clearer move/output
• FUSE: merge with neighbor(s) and rewrite into one stronger paragraph
• REPLACE: keep the slot, but rewrite using existing evidence cards (when coverage is missing)

Paragraph budget (profile-aware)

Default per-H3 target:

• draft_profile=survey: 10-12 paragraphs
• draft_profile=deep: 11-13 paragraphs

If you exceed the budget, do not delete content blindly. Prefer FUSE (merge redundancy) and make the fused paragraph denser.

Must-have coverage checklist (per H3)

Each H3 must contain at least:

• 1x Definition/Setup (only if this H3 introduces a new term/protocol field)
• 2x concrete Contrast paragraphs (A-vs-B comparisons; not just “many papers do...”)
• 1x Evaluation anchor paragraph (task + metric + constraint/budget/tool access; cite-backed)
• 1x cross-paper Synthesis paragraph (what generalizes, what does not; cite-backed)
• 1x Boundary/Failure paragraph (limitations; threats to validity; cite-backed when possible)
• 1x Local conclusion (a reusable takeaway used downstream)

If any item is missing, use REPLACE to write that paragraph from the writer context pack (do not invent new facts).

Workflow (minimal)

1. Pick the target set

• Start with the H3 bodies listed in output/SECTION_LOGIC_REPORT.md, plus any H3 flagged in output/WRITER_SELFLOOP_TODO.md as repetitive/template-y, plus any H3 that keeps growing across edits.
• Work file-by-file: each target is a concrete sections/S<sub_id>.md.

2. Build a paragraph inventory (scratch only; do not paste into the paper)

• If output/SECTION_ARGUMENT_SUMMARIES.jsonl exists, use its per-paragraph moves/output as the first draft of your inventory, then reconcile with the actual text. For each paragraph, write one line:
• P<i> :: move(s) -> output (1 sentence) :: citations (keys)

3. Apply the rubric and label each paragraph

• Mark KEEP/REWRITE/FUSE/REPLACE.
• If two adjacent paragraphs repeat the same axis, FUSE.
• For any paragraph you plan to change (REWRITE/REPLACE/FUSE), draft 2-3 candidate rewrites in parallel (different angles: contrast-first / protocol-first / synthesis-first).
  • Score candidates quickly with the rubric; keep one winner (or fuse two if they cover complementary axes).
  • Keep citation keys unchanged while sampling; you are choosing surface form + structure, not changing the evidence set.

4. Construct the curated set

• Use outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl to enforce must-have coverage (paragraph_plan/must_use/comparison_cards/limitation_hooks) without inventing new content.
• Enforce the must-have coverage checklist.
• Enforce the paragraph budget by fusing redundancy rather than deleting substance.

5. Fuse + rewrite (keep citation keys fixed) Rules that keep the pipeline stable:

• Do not add/remove citation keys; when fusing, carry citations forward and re-anchor them to the right sentence.
• Do not move citations across subsections.
• Avoid adjacent citation blocks (e.g., [@a] [@b]) and duplicate keys in one block (e.g., [@a; @a]).
• When fusing, it is often faster to write two fused candidates (one contrast-heavy, one synthesis-heavy) and pick the better one.

6. Write the report + marker

• output/PARAGRAPH_CURATION_REPORT.md should be short and actionable:
  • - Status: PASS|FAIL
  • per H3: paragraph count before/after; what was fused; any remaining gaps
  • (minimal) how many candidates you tried for the main rewrites (e.g., 2-3), so future passes can see whether this was a real selection step
• Create sections/paragraphs_curated.refined.ok.

Routing rules

• If you cannot fill a missing must-have paragraph without new evidence: stop and route upstream (evidence-selfloop / C3-C4). Do not pad.
• If you feel forced to change a definition or evaluation premise: update output/ARGUMENT_SKELETON.md# Consistency Contract first, then rerun argument-selfloop.
• If the only issue is surface cadence/openers: do not overwork curation; run style-harmonizer / opener-variator.

Done checklist

• Each targeted H3 stays within its paragraph budget (survey 10-12; deep 11-13) without losing required moves.
• Redundant paragraphs are fused into denser, clearer ones (not just deleted).
• No citation keys were added/removed; citation shape is reader-facing (no adjacent blocks, no dup keys).
• output/PARAGRAPH_CURATION_REPORT.md exists and is understandable.
• sections/paragraphs_curated.refined.ok exists.