tech-paper-template

tech-paper-template

Popular

Structures a technical paper's full logical skeleton using a thinking-template table (research background, limitations, key idea or goal, challenges, methodology modules, contributions), positions the paper as Technique or New Problem/Setting, and runs a four-point self-consistency check. Use when the user is brainstorming a paper, discussing progress with an advisor, or planning the paper before drafting. Also use for 'paper skeleton', 'paper logic chain', 'thinking template', 'paper-structure planning'.

7.8Kstars
486forks
Updated 9/5/2026
SKILL.md
read-only
name
tech-paper-template
description

Structures a technical paper's full logical skeleton using a thinking-template table (research background, limitations, key idea or goal, challenges, methodology modules, contributions), positions the paper as Technique or New Problem/Setting, and runs a four-point self-consistency check. Use when the user is brainstorming a paper, discussing progress with an advisor, or planning the paper before drafting. Also use for 'paper skeleton', 'paper logic chain', 'thinking template', 'paper-structure planning'.

Tech Paper Template

Overview

Before drafting any prose, a technical paper needs a full logical
skeleton: the research background, the specific limitations of prior
work, the key idea or research goal, the technical challenges that
prevent a naive solution, the methodology modules that address each
challenge, and the contributions that the paper will claim. This
skill fills in that skeleton via a standardised thinking-template
table, positions the paper type, and runs four self-consistency
checks on the logic chain.

The output is a filled-in thinking template plus a consistency
report. It is suitable for advisor-student brainstorming sessions,
weekly progress meetings, and the final planning step before writing
begins. It does not draft Introduction prose (use intro-drafter for
that); it operates at the logical-skeleton layer.

When to use this skill

  • Early brainstorming of a paper project.
  • Weekly progress meeting with an advisor or collaborator.
  • Pre-drafting planning after idea-evaluator returns Strong Accept.
  • The paper's logic chain feels incoherent and needs an audit.
  • The user asks for 'paper skeleton', 'paper logic chain', 'thinking
    template', or 'paper-structure planning'.
  • The user is unsure whether their paper is Technique or New
    Problem/Setting.

When NOT to use this skill

  • The paper is a benchmark paper. Use benchmark-paper-template (separate plugin).
  • The user needs an Introduction-specific paragraph outline. Use
    intro-drafter (typically run this skill first, then
    intro-drafter).
  • The user has a written draft and wants review feedback. Use
    pre-submission-reviewer.
  • The idea itself is not yet vetted. Use idea-evaluator first.

Core procedure

Step 1: Paper-type positioning

See: references/paper-types.md for the positioning criteria and
worked examples.

Decide Technique versus New Problem/Setting. In Technique, the Key
Idea carries the narrative and Our Goal is a short bridge. In New
Problem/Setting, Our Goal is the contribution and the Key Idea
justifies feasibility.

If the user's inputs describe a benchmark, stop and redirect to
benchmark-paper-template (separate plugin).

Step 2: Fill the thinking template

See: references/thinking-template.md for each template cell's content
contract, what a strong cell looks like, and common failure modes.

Fill the seven cells:

  1. Research background. Scenario, importance, motivation.
  2. Limitations 1 through 3 (2 is acceptable; more than 3 is not).
  3. Key idea or Our Goal. One sentence.
  4. Challenges 1 through 3 (similar cap).
  5. Methodology modules. One module per challenge.
  6. Contributions (3 or 4, each mapped to a section).

If a cell is incomplete given the user's inputs, mark it as a gap
with severity.

Step 3: Run four self-consistency checks

See: references/consistency-checks.md for the detailed checking
procedure and examples of chain breaks.

Run each check:

  1. Limitations to Key Idea: does the Key Idea or Goal address
    the stated Limitations? If not, either the Limitations are
    wrong or the Key Idea is misaligned.
  2. Key Idea to Challenges: do the Challenges arise naturally
    from implementing the Key Idea? If not, the challenges are
    invented to justify modules rather than derived from the idea.
  3. Challenges to Methodology: does each methodology module
    address one challenge? If not, there is a module without
    justification or a challenge without a fix.
  4. Methodology to Contributions: do the contributions cover
    each module or experimental result? If not, contributions are
    vague or promising more than the paper delivers.

Every failure is CRITICAL.

Step 4: Generate methodology outline

See: references/thinking-template.md for the methodology-outline
template.

From the challenges, derive a methodology outline: topic sentence,
per-module subsection names, and per-module one-sentence summary.
This becomes the skeleton for Section 3 or 4 of the paper.

Step 5: Integrity gate

Before emitting, run the checks in the Integrity gate section
below.

Step 6: Output

Emit the filled template plus the consistency report in the
Output format below.

Integrity gate

All seven bullets are [inspection] class: the LLM verifies each
directly from the filled template (counting, pattern-matching, or
comparing cells). No user-side attestation required.

Before returning the filled template:

  1. [inspection] Paper-type positioning is consistent with the
    user's actual contribution (Technique paper not shoehorned into
    New Problem framing, or vice versa).
  2. [inspection] Limitations are specific and cited-able, not
    vague.
  3. [inspection] Key Idea or Goal is a single sentence a
    reviewer could quote.
  4. [inspection] Challenges derive from implementing the Key
    Idea; they are not invented.
  5. [inspection] Methodology modules have one-to-one mapping
    with challenges.
  6. [inspection] Contributions map to methodology modules and
    to specific sections.
  7. [inspection] All four self-consistency checks pass.

If any check fails, mark the skeleton as "needs user attention".

Output format

1. Paper-type positioning

  • Type: <Technique Paper or New Problem/Setting Paper>
  • Rationale: <one sentence>

2. Thinking template

Stage Your content
Research background ...
Limitation 1 ...
Limitation 2 ...
Limitation 3 (if applicable) ...
Key Idea / Our Goal ...
Challenge 1 ...
Challenge 2 ...
Challenge 3 (if applicable) ...
Methodology topic sentence ...
Module A (addresses Challenge 1) ...
Module B (addresses Challenge 2) ...
Module C (addresses Challenge 3) ...
Contribution 1 ... (Section <X>)
Contribution 2 ... (Section <Y>)
Contribution 3 ... (Section <Z>)

3. Self-consistency checks

  • Check 1 Limitations -> Key Idea: <pass or fail>
  • Check 2 Key Idea -> Challenges: <pass or fail>
  • Check 3 Challenges -> Methodology: <pass or fail>
  • Check 4 Methodology -> Contributions: <pass or fail>

4. Severity summary

  • <n> CRITICAL, <m> MAJOR, <k> MINOR.
  • Top three fixes first: ...

5. Next suggested skill

  • If all checks pass: intro-drafter to produce the Introduction
    paragraph outline.
  • If checks fail: address the flagged chain breaks first.