brycewang-stanford/academic-paper-composer

<!-- ╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗ ║ 本文件为开源 Skill 原始文档，收录仅供学习与研究参考 ║ ║ CoPaper.AI 收集整理 | https://copaper.ai ║ ╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝ 来源仓库: https://github.com/lishix520/academic-paper-skills 项目名称: academic-paper-skills 开源协议: MIT License 收录日期: 2026-04-02 声明: 本文件版权归原作者所有。此处收录旨在为社会科学实证研究者 提供 AI Agent Skills 的集中参考。如有侵权，请联系删除。 -->

Academic Paper Composer

Overview

This skill provides a systematic framework for writing academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. It implements iterative quality control at both chapter-level and paper-level, ensuring consistent high quality throughout the writing process.

Input: Detailed, optimized paper outline (from academic-paper-strategist or equivalent)

Output: Complete, submission-ready manuscript with quality validation reports

Prerequisite: Use academic-paper-strategist skill first to create optimized outline (or provide equivalent detailed outline)

---

When to Use This Skill

Use academic-paper-composer when you need to:

Writing Stage:

• Execute a detailed paper outline systematically
• Write a complete academic paper chapter-by-chapter
• Maintain quality control during writing process
• Ensure consistency across all sections

Quality Assurance Stage:

• Validate each chapter before proceeding
• Check cross-chapter coherence
• Perform final quality assessment
• Verify submission readiness

Submission Preparation Stage:

• Prepare manuscript for platform submission
• Complete platform-specific checklists
• Generate final submission package

Triggers:

• "Write the paper from this outline"
• "Compose the full manuscript"
• "Execute the outline systematically"
• "I have an outline, help me write the paper"
• After completing academic-paper-strategist skill

---

Workflow Overview

Phase 4: SYSTEMATIC WRITING (Chapter-by-Chapter + Quality Gates)
    ↓
Phase 5: QUALITY CONTROL (Final Validation + Submission Prep)
    ↓
Output: Submission-Ready Manuscript + Quality Reports

Quality Gates: After each chapter + final paper evaluation

---

Required Input

Before using this skill, you must provide:

1. Optimized Detailed Outline

Required structure:

## Abstract (250-300 words)
- [Key points to cover]

## 1. Introduction (1,500 words)
### 1.1 Opening Puzzle (400 words)
- [Content guidance]
### 1.2 Literature Review (600 words)
- [Theories to discuss]
### 1.3 This Paper's Contribution (500 words)
- [Specific claims]

## 2. [Main Chapter Title] (1,200 words)
### 2.1 [Section] (400 words)
- [Argument structure]
- [Key citations]
...

[Complete structure with word counts and content guidance]

Quality check: Outline should specify:

• ✓ Chapter titles and word counts
• ✓ Subsection structure (to 3rd level)
• ✓ Content guidance for each section
• ✓ Key citations to include
• ✓ Argument structure notes

If outline lacks these, consider using academic-paper-strategist first.

2. Platform Writing Standards Guide

From academic-paper-strategist Phase 1, or equivalent document specifying:

• Platform style patterns (voice, terminology, citation format)
• Structural conventions
• Example papers for reference

3. Literature Base (Optional but Recommended)

• List of core papers to cite
• Research gap analysis
• Key concepts to emphasize

---

Phase 4: Systematic Writing

Goal

Write complete manuscript chapter-by-chapter with iterative quality control.

Workflow

Step 4.1: Writing Environment Setup

Before writing, I will:

1. Verify outline completeness:

   • All chapters specified with word counts
   • Content guidance provided
   • Argument structure clear

2. Load reference documents:

   • Platform writing standards
   • Section writing guides (references/section_guides.md)
   • Quality standards (references/writing_standards.md)

3. Create writing tracker:

   # Writing Progress Tracker
   - [ ] Abstract (250 words)
   - [ ] Chapter 1: Introduction (1,500 words)
   - [ ] Chapter 2: [Title] (1,200 words)
   ...
   - [ ] Conclusion (1,000 words)
   - [ ] References
   

Decision Point 1: Confirm outline and standards loaded, ready to begin writing.

Step 4.2: Chapter-by-Chapter Writing

For each chapter, I will follow this sequence:

A. Pre-Writing Review

Before writing chapter N:

1. Review outline specification for this chapter:

   • Word count target
   • Subsection structure
   • Content guidance
   • Key arguments/citations

2. Review previous chapter (if N>1):

   • Last paragraph of chapter N-1
   • Key concepts introduced
   • Promises to fulfill

3. Check section guide:

   • Load appropriate template from references/section_guides.md
   • Review quality markers for this section type

B. Writing Execution

I will write the chapter following:

Content principles:

• Follow outline exactly: Respect structure and word counts
• Include specified citations: Use literature from outline
• Maintain platform style: Match voice and terminology
• Use section templates: Follow appropriate guide from section_guides.md

Quality targets (pre-emptive):

• Argument quality: Clear thesis, justified premises
• Citation quality: All claims supported, proper format
• Clarity: Precise prose, terms defined, good transitions
• Structure: Logical flow, proper proportions
• Style conformity: Match platform conventions

Output: Complete chapter draft

C. Post-Writing Evaluation

After completing chapter draft, I will:

1. Create evaluation document:

   python scripts/chapter_quality_check.py
   # Option 1: Create template for this chapter
   

2. Perform 5-dimension assessment:

   • Argument Quality (1-4): Thesis clear? Premises justified? Objections addressed?
   • Citation Quality (1-4): All claims cited? Format consistent? Key literature included?
   • Clarity & Readability (1-4): Prose clear? Terms defined? Transitions smooth?
   • Structure & Flow (1-4): Logical progression? Proper proportions? Follows outline?
   • Platform Conformity (1-4): Style match? Voice consistent? Format correct?

3. Generate quality report:

   python scripts/chapter_quality_check.py
   # Option 2: Generate report from evaluation
   

   This produces:

   • Total score (X/20)
   • Pass/fail (threshold: ≥16/20)
   • Weak dimensions identified
   • Specific revision recommendations

Quality Gate 4A (After Each Chapter):

• ✓ Score ≥16/20 (80%)
• ✓ All dimensions ≥3/4 (or revisions implemented)
• ✓ Word count within ±10% of target

If Failed: Implement revisions before proceeding to next chapter

D. Iteration (If Needed)

If chapter scores <16/20:

1. Identify weak dimension(s): Which scored <3/4?

2. Implement targeted revisions:

   • Argument quality issue → Add justifications, address objections
   • Citation quality issue → Add supporting citations, fix format
   • Clarity issue → Simplify prose, add definitions, improve transitions
   • Structure issue → Reorganize paragraphs, adjust proportions
   • Style issue → Adjust voice, terminology, format

3. Re-evaluate: Generate new quality report

4. Repeat until passing (typically 1-2 iterations)

Important: Do not proceed to next chapter until current chapter passes quality gate.

E. Chapter Completion

Once chapter passes quality gate:

1. Mark chapter complete in writing tracker
2. Save chapter with quality report
3. Note key concepts introduced (for coherence check later)
4. Preview next chapter requirements

Decision Point 2 (After Major Chapters): After completing each main body chapter, I will:

• Present completed chapter summary
• Show quality score
• Ask: Proceed to next chapter or revise further?

Step 4.3: Writing Sequence

Recommended order:

1. Introduction (write first)

   • Establishes thesis and roadmap
   • Use introduction guide from section_guides.md
   • Quality check: Abstract promises, literature coverage, clear contribution

2. Main Body Chapters (in outline order)

   • Follow outline sequence
   • Quality check after each
   • Build on previous chapters

3. Conclusion (write after main body)

   • Synthesizes findings
   • Addresses introduction promises
   • Use conclusion guide from section_guides.md

4. Abstract (write last)

   • Summarizes complete paper
   • Use abstract guide from section_guides.md
   • Quality check: Standalone, accurate, compelling

5. References (compile throughout)

   • Format according to platform standards
   • Verify all citations present

Step 4.4: Cross-Chapter Coherence Check

After all chapters written, before final evaluation:

1. Terminology consistency:

   • Extract key terms from each chapter
   • Verify consistent usage throughout
   • Check definitions consistent

2. Argument flow:

   • Verify chapter N+1 builds on chapter N
   • Check roadmap (intro) matches execution
   • Ensure conclusion addresses introduction promises

3. Citation patterns:

   • Check for uneven citation distribution
   • Verify key works cited where relevant
   • Ensure bibliography complete

Output: Cross-chapter coherence report identifying any inconsistencies

---

Phase 5: Quality Control

Goal

Perform comprehensive final evaluation and prepare submission-ready manuscript.

Workflow

Step 5.1: Content Completeness Check

Using structured checklist, verify:

Structural Completeness:

• [ ] Abstract (250-300 words)
• [ ] Introduction with all required elements
• [ ] All outlined main chapters present
• [ ] Conclusion with all required elements
• [ ] References section formatted correctly

Content Completeness:

• [ ] All introduction promises fulfilled
• [ ] All claims supported by evidence or argument
• [ ] All technical terms defined
• [ ] All objections addressed
• [ ] All limitations acknowledged

Citation Completeness:

• [ ] Every citation in text has bibliography entry
• [ ] Every bibliography entry cited in text
• [ ] Citation format consistent throughout
• [ ] All citations include necessary information

Format Completeness:

• [ ] Title page (if required)
• [ ] Section numbering consistent
• [ ] Heading hierarchy logical
• [ ] Figure/table captions (if applicable)

Output: Completeness checklist report

Step 5.2: Final 7-Dimension Evaluation

I will perform comprehensive evaluation using:

python scripts/final_evaluation.py
# Create evaluation template

7 Dimensions (10 points each, 70 total):

1. Overall Argument Quality (1-10)

   • Thesis clarity throughout
   • Chapter integration
   • Logical completeness
   • Objections addressed

2. Literature Integration (1-10)

   • Citation count (40-60 typical for philosophy)
   • Key literature covered
   • Citations well-integrated
   • Critical engagement present

3. Clarity & Accessibility (1-10)

   • Prose clarity
   • Complex ideas explained
   • Appropriate for audience
   • Technical terms defined

4. Originality & Contribution (1-10)

   • Clear original contribution
   • Advance over literature
   • Significance established
   • Innovation present

5. Methodological Rigor (1-10)

   • Method explicit and justified
   • Consistently applied
   • Appropriate for question
   • Limitations acknowledged

6. Structure & Organization (1-10)

   • Logical flow
   • Optimal organization
   • Proportions balanced
   • Transitions seamless

7. Platform & Style Conformity (1-10)

   • Style matches platform
   • Format correct
   • Voice consistent
   • Citation format perfect

Scoring Process:

1. Evaluate each dimension (1-10)
2. Provide detailed notes for each
3. Complete completeness checklist
4. List any specific issues

Generate report:

python scripts/final_evaluation.py
# Generate final report

This produces:

• Total score (X/70)
• Pass/fail (threshold: ≥56/70)
• Weak dimensions identified
• Completeness assessment
• Prioritized revision recommendations
• Submission readiness decision

Quality Gate 5 (Final):

• ✓ Score ≥56/70 (80%)
• ✓ All completeness checklist items complete
• ✓ All high-priority issues addressed

If Failed: Implement revisions and re-evaluate

Step 5.3: Revision Implementation (If Needed)

If final score <56/70 or completeness incomplete:

1. Prioritize revisions:

   • HIGH priority: All issues affecting score or completeness
   • MEDIUM priority: Issues improving quality
   • LOW priority: Optional enhancements

2. Implement systematically:

   • Address high-priority first
   • Document changes
   • Maintain style consistency

3. Re-evaluate:

   • Generate new final report
   • Verify score ≥56/70
   • Check completeness 100%

4. Iterate until passing

Decision Point 3: After final evaluation, I will:

• Present final score and assessment
• Show submission readiness status
• Recommend: Submit immediately / Implement optional improvements / Required revisions
• Ask: Proceed with submission or implement further improvements?

Step 5.4: Submission Package Preparation

Once final evaluation passes:

1. Platform-specific checklist:

   • PhilArchive/PhilPapers:

     • [ ] PDF format
     • [ ] Abstract <500 words
     • [ ] Metadata (title, keywords, classification)
     • [ ] Author information complete

   • arXiv:

     • [ ] LaTeX or PDF format
     • [ ] Abstract <1920 characters
     • [ ] Category selection correct
     • [ ] No font embedding issues

   • PhilSci-Archive:

     • [ ] PDF format
     • [ ] Subject classification
     • [ ] Keywords (3-5)
     • [ ] No copyright issues

2. Generate final outputs:

   • Formatted manuscript (PDF or LaTeX)
   • Abstract (separate file if needed)
   • Metadata file
   • Cover letter (if applicable)

3. Pre-submission verification:

   • Re-read complete paper
   • Check all formatting
   • Verify all links/citations work
   • Proofread for typos

Output: Complete submission package ready for platform upload

---

Complete Output Package

Upon completion of both phases, you receive:

Quality Reports

1. Chapter Quality Reports (one per chapter)

   • 5-dimension scores
   • Pass/fail status
   • Revision recommendations implemented

2. Cross-Chapter Coherence Report

   • Terminology consistency check
   • Argument flow verification
   • Citation pattern analysis

3. Final Evaluation Report ⭐ Key Document

   • 7-dimension comprehensive assessment
   • Completeness checklist (100%)
   • Submission readiness decision
   • Platform-specific checklist

Manuscript Files

1. Complete Manuscript ⭐ Main Deliverable

   • All chapters integrated
   • Properly formatted
   • Citations complete
   • Submission-ready

2. Abstract (separate file)

   • Standalone 250-300 words
   • Platform-formatted

3. Metadata Document

   • Title, keywords, classification
   • Author information
   • Platform-specific requirements

Supporting Documentation

1. Writing Progress Tracker

   • All chapters completed
   • Quality scores logged
   • Revision history

2. Citation List

   • All references used
   • Formatted for platform
   • Verified complete

---

Quality Assurance System

Quality Standards Reference

For detailed evaluation criteria, all standards are defined in:

references/writing_standards.md

This document provides:

• Chapter-level quality standards (5 dimensions)
• Final quality standards (7 dimensions)
• Section-specific quality criteria
• Scoring rubrics
• Issue identification and fixes

Section Writing Guides

For guidance on writing each section type:

references/section_guides.md

This provides:

• Abstract writing template and checklist
• Introduction structure (6 subsections)
• Main body chapter templates (4 types)
• Conclusion structure
• Transition strategies
• Platform-specific style guidance
• Common mistakes and fixes

Evaluation Scripts

Two Python scripts support quality validation:

1. Chapter Quality Check

python scripts/chapter_quality_check.py

Function: Evaluates individual chapters against 5-dimension standards

• Creates evaluation templates
• Calculates scores and pass/fail
• Identifies weak dimensions
• Generates revision recommendations
• Supports multi-chapter comparison

When to Use: After writing each chapter (Step 4.2.C)

2. Final Paper Evaluation

python scripts/final_evaluation.py

Function: Evaluates complete paper against 7-dimension standards

• Comprehensive quality assessment
• Completeness checklist validation
• Submission readiness determination
• Platform-specific preparation
• Generates final report with recommendations

When to Use: After all chapters complete (Step 5.2)

---

Decision Points (Interactive)

This skill has 3 key decision points where I pause for your input:

Decision Point 1: Writing Commencement (Step 4.1)

I provide: Loaded outline, standards, and writing plan You confirm: Ready to begin writing / Need adjustments

Decision Point 2: Chapter Completion (Step 4.2.E)

I provide: Completed chapter with quality score You decide: Proceed to next / Revise further / Adjust approach

Frequency: After each main body chapter (3-5 times typically)

Decision Point 3: Final Submission (Step 5.3)

I provide: Final evaluation report with score and readiness assessment You decide: Submit immediately / Implement optional improvements / Additional revisions

---

Example Usage

User Request

"I have the optimized outline from the strategist skill. Please write the complete paper on self-continuity during sleep."

Skill Response

Phase 4: Systematic Writing

1. Setup: Outline loaded (6 chapters, 9,600 words total). Platform: PhilArchive. Standards loaded. ✓

2. Chapter 1 - Introduction (1,500 words):

   • Writing... [follows outline structure]
   • Self-evaluation: Argument 4/4, Citation 3/4, Clarity 4/4, Structure 3/4, Style 4/4
   • Score: 18/20 ✓ PASS
   • Decision Point 2: Proceed to Chapter 2?

3. Chapter 2 - Narrative Compression Framework (1,200 words):

   • Writing... [develops theoretical framework]
   • Self-evaluation: All dimensions 3-4
   • Score: 17/20 ✓ PASS
   • Decision Point 2: Proceed to Chapter 3?

4. Chapter 3-5: [Similar process for each chapter]

5. Chapter 6 - Conclusion (1,000 words):

   • Writing... [synthesizes findings]
   • Score: 18/20 ✓ PASS

6. Abstract (280 words):

   • Writing... [summarizes complete paper]
   • Score: 19/20 ✓ PASS

7. Cross-Chapter Coherence: Terminology consistent ✓, Argument flow verified ✓, Citations complete ✓

Phase 5: Quality Control

1. Completeness Check: All items complete ✓ (18/18)

2. Final Evaluation:

   • Overall Argument: 9/10
   • Literature Integration: 8/10 (48 citations)
   • Clarity: 9/10
   • Originality: 8/10
   • Methodology: 8/10
   • Structure: 9/10
   • Platform Fit: 9/10
   • Total: 60/70 (85.7%) ✓ PASS

3. Decision Point 3: Paper scored 60/70 (Good quality, ready for submission). Submit now or implement optional improvements?

4. Submission Package: PDF generated, metadata prepared, PhilArchive checklist complete ✓

Output: Submission-ready manuscript + comprehensive quality reports

---

Tips for Best Results

Provide Complete Outline

• The more detailed your outline, the better the writing quality
• Include content guidance for each section
• Specify key citations and argument structure
• Indicate expected word counts

Trust the Iterative Process

• Chapter-level quality gates ensure each section is solid
• Don't skip quality checks (they prevent cascading problems)
• Revisions at chapter-level are easier than whole-paper revisions

Engage at Decision Points

• Your input at decision points shapes the final manuscript
• Feel free to request additional revisions even if chapter passes
• Provide feedback on style or emphasis

Use Quality Reports

• Chapter reports show specific weaknesses
• Final report provides objective submission readiness assessment
• Use reports to track improvement across chapters

Leverage Section Guides

• I reference section_guides.md for each section type
• You can review these guides directly if you want to understand the approach
• Guides include templates, examples, and common mistakes

---

Integration with Academic-Paper-Strategist

This skill is designed to work seamlessly with academic-paper-strategist:

Ideal workflow:

1. Use academic-paper-strategist to:

   • Identify optimal platform
   • Conduct literature search
   • Identify research gaps
   • Assess originality
   • Generate optimized detailed outline

2. Use academic-paper-composer (this skill) to:

   • Execute the outline systematically
   • Maintain quality control during writing
   • Produce submission-ready manuscript

Can be used standalone: If you already have a detailed outline from another source, you can use this skill directly (skip strategist).

---

Limitations and Notes

• Requires detailed outline: Vague outlines produce lower-quality output; specificity is key
• Iterative process takes time: Quality writing with validation requires patience; typical timeline: 1-2 days for 10,000-word paper
• Quality checks are systematic, not perfect: Final human review recommended before submission
• Platform-specific formatting: I adapt to platform standards, but you should verify final format
• Complementary to strategist skill: Best results come from using both skills in sequence

---

Common Issues and Solutions

Issue 1: Chapter Fails Quality Gate

Symptom: Score <16/20 after writing chapter

Solution:

1. Review weak dimension(s) from report
2. Implement specific recommendations
3. Re-evaluate chapter
4. Typical fix time: 30-60 minutes

Prevention: Follow section guides closely during initial writing

Issue 2: Inconsistent Style Across Chapters

Symptom: Some chapters feel different in tone or voice

Solution:

1. Run cross-chapter coherence check (Step 4.4)
2. Identify inconsistent terminology or voice
3. Revise to match dominant style
4. Re-run check to verify

Prevention: Reference platform standards before writing each chapter

Issue 3: Low Final Score (<56/70)

Symptom: Paper fails final quality gate

Solution:

1. Identify weak dimensions from final report
2. Focus on dimensions scoring <7/10
3. Implement high-priority revisions systematically
4. Re-evaluate after revisions

Common causes: Insufficient literature integration, unclear contribution, poor coherence

Issue 4: Completeness Checklist Incomplete

Symptom: Missing required elements

Solution:

1. Review which category has incomplete items
2. Add missing elements (e.g., missing objections section, incomplete references)
3. Re-run completeness check

Prevention: Use writing tracker throughout; check outline completeness before starting

---

Platform-Specific Notes

PhilArchive / PhilPapers

• Style: First-person acceptable ("I argue")
• Length: 5,000-12,000 words typical
• Citations: APA or Chicago author-year
• Quality focus: Philosophical rigor, argument clarity

arXiv (Philosophy-adjacent)

• Style: More formal, passive voice common
• Length: Varies widely (3,000-20,000)
• Citations: Varies by subcategory
• Quality focus: Interdisciplinary clarity, technical precision

PhilSci-Archive

• Style: Bridges philosophical and scientific
• Length: 6,000-15,000 words typical
• Citations: Author-year typical
• Quality focus: Integration of philosophy + science

---

Summary

academic-paper-composer transforms an optimized outline into a submission-ready manuscript through:

1. Systematic Writing (Phase 4): Chapter-by-chapter execution with 5-dimension quality checks after each (≥16/20 threshold)
2. Quality Control (Phase 5): Final 7-dimension assessment (≥56/70 threshold) + completeness validation + submission preparation

Quality Assurance: Iterative evaluation at chapter and paper levels ensures consistent quality throughout.

Output: Submission-ready manuscript with comprehensive quality reports documenting systematic validation.

Estimated Time: 1-2 days for systematic writing and validation of 8,000-12,000 word paper (varies with outline detail and revision needs).

---

Related Skills

Prerequisite: academic-paper-strategist

• Produces the optimized outline that this skill executes
• Highly recommended to use first for best results

This skill can be used standalone: If you have a detailed outline from another source, you can proceed directly with this skill.