queelius/draft

Multi-Agent Paper Drafting

Launch a multi-agent system to draft a research paper. The writing system uses specialist writers for different content types (related work, mathematical content, methodology, results), coordinated by a lead author who plans the paper, integrates sections, and writes the bookend sections (abstract, introduction, conclusion).

Step 1: Read Context

Read .papermill/state.md (Read tool) for:

• Thesis: The central claim and novelty (required — the draft serves the thesis)
• Outline: Section structure (strongly recommended — guides section assignment)
• Venue: Target venue and format
• Prior art: Key references and gaps
• Experiments: Any registered experiments and their status
• Format: Paper format (latex, markdown, rmarkdown)

If .papermill/state.md does not exist, warn the user:

I can draft without a state file, but results will be much better if you first run:

1. /papermill:init — to set up the project
2. /papermill:thesis — to crystallize the central claim
3. /papermill:outline — to design the paper structure

Want to proceed anyway, or set up the project first?

If no outline exists but a thesis does, the writer orchestrator will create an outline as its first step — but an author-approved outline produces better results.

Step 2: Identify Existing Content

Scan the project for existing materials:

1. Manuscript files (Glob: *.tex, *.md, *.Rmd) — is there already a partial draft?
2. Bibliography (Glob: *.bib) — existing references
3. Code and data (Glob: code/, scripts/, data/, results/) — evidence to incorporate
4. Figures (Glob: images/, figures/, fig/, *.png, *.pdf in paper directories)

Summarize what exists to the user:

Project inventory:

• Thesis: [yes/no — quote if yes]
• Outline: [yes/no — summarize sections if yes]
• Existing draft: [yes/no — describe what exists]
• Bibliography: [N entries in file.bib]
• Code/data: [brief description]
• Figures: [N figures available]

Step 3: Determine Scope

Ask the user what they want drafted:

I can draft:

1. Full paper — all sections from abstract to conclusion
2. Specific sections — choose which sections to write
3. Extension — add new sections/content to an existing draft

Which approach? And is there anything specific I should know about the paper's direction?

If the user chooses specific sections, note which ones. If they choose extension, identify what already exists and what needs adding.

Step 4: Launch the Writer Orchestrator

Launch the writer agent (Task tool with subagent_type: "papermill:writer").

Pass the agent:

• Path to .papermill/state.md (if it exists)
• Paths to existing manuscript files
• Paths to bibliography, code, data, and figures
• The drafting scope (full paper / specific sections / extension)
• Any user preferences or instructions about direction
• The thesis statement and target venue (if known)

The agent will:

1. Read all context and produce a comprehension summary
2. Create a writing plan with section assignments
3. Spawn literature scouts in parallel for field context
4. Spawn specialist writers in parallel for assigned sections
5. Integrate section drafts into a unified manuscript
6. Write bookend sections (abstract, introduction, conclusion)
7. Verify the manuscript builds cleanly
8. Write the manuscript and section artifacts to the project

Step 5: Present Results

After the agent completes, read the manuscript file (Read tool).

Present a summary to the user:

Draft Complete

Manuscript: [path to main file] Sections drafted: [list of sections with specialist who wrote each] Word/page count: [approximate] Build status: [compiles cleanly / has N warnings / needs fixes]

Section drafts and writing plan: .papermill/drafts/YYYY-MM-DD/

The draft is a starting point, not a final product. Key areas to review:

1. [Most important thing to check — e.g., "Proof in Section 4 may need verification"]
2. [Second priority — e.g., "Results section has placeholders for experimental data"]
3. [Third priority — e.g., "Related work positioning could be sharpened"]

Then ask: "Would you like to review specific sections, or run /papermill:review for a systematic evaluation?"

Step 6: Update State File

Update .papermill/state.md (Edit tool):

• Set stage to drafting or draft-complete
• Append a timestamped note documenting the draft:

- YYYY-MM-DD (draft): Multi-agent draft complete. Sections: [list]. Specialists used: [list]. Placeholders: [count if any].

Step 7: Suggest Next Steps

Based on the draft's state, suggest the most relevant next step:

• Draft has placeholders (missing data/results) → "Run experiments to fill the placeholders, then re-draft those sections."
• Draft is complete but unreviewed → /papermill:review for systematic multi-agent evaluation
• Draft needs specific section work → "You can re-run /papermill:draft targeting specific sections, or edit directly."
• Draft is near-complete → /papermill:polish for pre-submission preparation
• Proofs need verification → /papermill:proof to check mathematical content