Stem Method Writer

STEM Method Writer

Purpose

Use this skill to write a precise, reproducible, and reviewer-friendly method section for STEM research. The goal is to make the method clear enough to implement, evaluate, and critique.

Inputs To Ask For

• Paper field and target venue style.
• The problem statement.
• Method name and high-level idea.
• Equations, architecture, workflow, experimental apparatus, dataset, or protocol.
• Baselines, assumptions, constraints, and implementation details.

Section Blueprint

Adapt the blueprint to the discipline:

1. Problem formulation.

   • Define inputs, outputs, symbols, units, and assumptions.
   • State optimization objective, hypothesis, or design target.

2. Method overview.

   • Give a short pipeline or architecture description.
   • Name the key components and explain why each exists.

3. Core method.

   • Present algorithmic steps, mathematical model, experimental procedure, or system design.
   • Define every variable before use.
   • Explain design choices only when they affect behavior, reproducibility, or interpretation.

4. Implementation or apparatus.

   • Report software, hardware, parameters, training details, materials, instruments, preprocessing, calibration, or sampling protocol.
   • Include enough detail for replication without bloating the main text.

5. Complexity, validity, or theory.

   • Add computational complexity, convergence, stability, uncertainty, error analysis, or mechanism explanation when relevant.

6. Limitations and scope.

   • State what the method assumes and where it may fail.

Writing Rules

• Prefer concrete technical nouns over vague verbs like "optimize", "improve", or "enhance" unless the metric is stated.
• Do not hide novelty in the introduction only; make the method's technical difference explicit.
• Use numbered algorithms, tables, equations, and diagrams when they reduce ambiguity.
• Keep notation consistent with figures, tables, code, and experiments.
• Avoid overclaiming. Write what the method does, under what conditions, and with what evidence.

Output Format

Provide:

• Recommended section structure.
• A polished method-section draft.
• A notation table when variables are dense.
• Missing-detail checklist for reproducibility.
• Reviewer-risk notes, especially missing assumptions, unclear baselines, or unsupported design choices.

Quality Checklist

• A reader can identify input, output, assumptions, and objective.
• The technical novelty is explicit and narrow.
• Parameters and implementation choices are reproducible.
• Equations and algorithms are explained in prose.
• The section connects naturally to the experiments.