论文写作
- 作者仓库星标 428
- 作者更新于 实时读取
- 作者仓库 PantheonOS
- 领域
- 写作
- 兼容 Agent
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- 信任分
- 88 / 100 · 社区维护
- 作者 / 版本 / 许可
- @aristoteleo · 未声明 license
- Token 消耗评级
- 低消耗
- 接入复杂程度
- 需简单配置
- 是否需要外部 API Key
- 不需要
- 兼容的系统
- 未声明（默认跨平台）
- 底层运行要求
- 无特殊要求
- 文件与系统权限
-
- 只读
- 允许写入 / 修改
- 网络行为
- 允许外网请求
- 安装命令数
- 26 条
档案由构建时根据 SKILL.md 与安装命令自动衍生，可能与作者实际意图存在差异。
需要注意： 未限定 allowed-tools，默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: Paper Writing Skills Index
description: | Two modes control which files and gates are loaded. Set mode in triage.md during Phase 0. If a…
category: 写作
runtime: 无特殊运行时
---
# Paper Writing Skills Index 输出预览
## PART A: 任务判断
- 适用问题：文章、文案、发言稿、润色或结构化表达。
- 输入要求：目标材料、限制条件、期望输出和验收方式。
- 证据边界：围绕“Mode / Routing + Sequential Pipeline / Scenario Routing”读取原文规则，不把推断写成作者承诺。
## PART B: 执行结果
- **01** 任务判断：确认你的需求是否属于文章、文案、发言稿、润色或结构化表达，并标出输入、限制和预期结果。
- **02** 执行计划：优先按“Mode / Routing + Sequential Pipeline / Scenario Routing”拆成步骤，说明每一步会读取什么、修改什么、产出什么。
- **03** 交付结果：给出可复制的命令、文件改动、检查清单或内容草稿，并说明如何继续迭代。
- **04** 风险边界：结合 读取文件、写入/修改文件、会按任务需要访问外部网络、通常不需要额外 API Key 给出执行前确认项。
## Running Rules
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件；会按任务需要访问外部网络；通常不需要额外 API Key。
- 先小样例验证，再放大到真实任务。
- 交付时同时给结果、检查口径和下一步迭代建议。原文没有稳定的斜杠命令要求。安装验证后通常全局生效，直接在对话里点名这个 Skill 并描述任务即可。
告诉 Agent 目标文件或材料、期望结果、不可改范围、是否允许联网或执行命令。本 Skill 的权限画像是：读取文件、写入/修改文件。
先用一个小任务确认它会围绕“Mode / Routing + Sequential Pipeline / Scenario Routing”工作；涉及文件或命令时，先看 diff、日志、预览或测试结果。
检查最终产物是否包含明确结果、必要证据和下一步动作；如果输出泛泛而谈，就补充输入、边界和验收标准后重跑。
---
name: Paper Writing Skills Index
description: | Two modes control which files and gates are loaded. Set mode in triage.md during Phase 0. If a…
category: 写作
source: aristoteleo/PantheonOS
---
# Paper Writing Skills Index
## 什么时候使用
- 把写作方向的常用动作沉淀成 Agent 可调用的技能 适合处理文章、文案、润色、翻译、总结和结构化表达，核心价值是把输入、判断、执行、验证和交付边界固定下来，避免 Agent 泛泛回答。 把任务拆成可执行、可检查、可继续迭代的步骤；通常…
- 面向文章、文案、发言稿、润色或结构化表达，优先处理能明确输入、步骤和验收标准的工作。
## 需要提供什么
- 目标材料、目录范围、期望结果和不可改动内容。
- 是否允许联网、执行命令、读写文件或调用外部服务。
## 执行规则
- 围绕「Mode / Routing + Sequential Pipeline / Scenario Routing」组织步骤，不把推断写成作者事实。
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件；会按任务需要访问外部网络；通常不需要额外 API Key。
- 先跑小样例，确认结果可检查后再扩大任务范围。
## 输出要求
- 给出最终产物、关键证据、验证方式和下一步动作。
- 信息不足时标记 unknown，不编造命令、平台或依赖。作者原文负责流程事实；仓库文件负责来源和命令；流狐只补充适用场景、限制和质量判断。
skill "Paper Writing Skills Index" {
输入层 -> 用户目标 + 目标文件 + 禁止范围 + 验收标准
上下文层 -> Mode / Routing + Sequential Pipeline / Scenario Routing
规则层 -> SKILL.md 触发条件 / 执行顺序 / 输出格式
运行层 -> 无特殊运行时 | 读取文件、写入/修改文件 | 会按任务需要访问外部网络
安全层 -> 通常不需要额外 API Key + 小任务验证 + diff / 日志复核
输出层 -> 可复制结果 + 检查清单 + 下一步迭代
}Paper Writing Skills
Mode
Two modes control which files and gates are loaded. Set mode in triage.md during Phase 0.
| Mode | Default for | Trigger words (override default) |
|---|---|---|
report |
all scenarios | (default — no trigger needed) |
submission |
journal_article, conference_paper, paper_submission, grant_proposal, revision_response | 投稿、submit、journal、conference、SCI、Nature、Cell、NeurIPS、ICLR、grant、基金、申请书、rebuttal、revision、peer review、深度调研、systematic review、meta-analysis |
If any submission trigger word appears in the user request, set mode: submission regardless of scenario. Otherwise default to report.
What changes in submission mode |
|---|
| Load paper_fetch.md during Phase 1 |
| Load writing/claim_evidence_check.md during Phase 4 |
| Load writing/reviewer_rubric.md during Phase 4 |
| Load reporting_guideline_check.md during Phase 4 (clinical/observational/systematic review only) |
Routing + Sequential Pipeline
| Phase | Entry criteria | Actions | Exit criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0. Triage | a user request and any UI scenario labels | Read workflow/SKILL.md ("Triage" section). Choose scenario_id, format_id, theme_id, mode, language, audience, outputs, constraints. |
{workdir}/triage.md exists or is updated |
| 1. Materials and evidence | triage is known | Read the chosen scenario file under scenarios/. Inventory materials. submission only: fetch/search papers via paper_fetch.md, build evidence registry (see Evidence Layer below). |
{workdir}/materials/inventory.md; submission: also claim_evidence_map.md |
| 2. Outline + claim boundary | materials are known | Read workflow/SKILL.md ("Paper Outline" + "Figure Storyline" sections). submission + novelty claim: also read Knowledge Lineage Audit in scenarios/grant_proposal.md. |
outline |
| 3. Section drafting | outline exists | Read writing/SKILL.md. Draft Markdown. | {workdir}/draft/paper.md |
| 4. Quality gates | draft exists | Run gates per mode (see Quality Gates below). | quality reports under {workdir}/quality/ |
| 5. Editable output | draft + quality notes exist | Apply the chosen rendering template + theme per the Editable HTML Contract section below. | {workdir}/report/<slug>_preview.html |
Scenario Routing
| User intent | scenario_id |
Required scenario file | Default mode |
|---|---|---|---|
| manuscript, paper submission, write a paper | paper_submission |
scenarios/paper_submission.md | submission |
| journal article, SCI, Nature-style paper | journal_article |
scenarios/journal_article.md | submission |
| conference paper, workshop paper | conference_paper |
scenarios/conference_paper.md | submission |
| grant, proposal, funding application | grant_proposal |
scenarios/grant_proposal.md | submission |
| lab report, experiment report | lab_report |
scenarios/lab_report.md | report |
| group meeting, weekly report | group_report |
scenarios/group_report.md | report |
| conference talk, workshop sharing | conference_talk / workshop_share |
scenarios/conference_talk.md / scenarios/workshop_share.md | report |
| reviewer comments, rebuttal, revision response | revision_response |
scenarios/revision_response.md | submission |
Family Index
| Layer | File | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow phases | workflow/SKILL.md | 9 phases inlined: triage, material inventory, research question, literature review, paper outline, data analysis summary, figure storyline, reader testing, finalize packet |
| Section writing | writing/SKILL.md | abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, claim_evidence_check (citation grounding inlined), reviewer_rubric (+ reviewer_rubric_example), response_letter |
| Evidence layer | inlined below | paper_fetch, evidence registry, evidence summary, context-bound answering |
| Quality gates | inlined below | manuscript coverage, format lint, reproducibility; reporting_guideline_check (clinical) at reporting_guideline_check.md |
| Editable HTML contract | inlined below | block shape, attributes, validation pass criteria |
| Themes | themes/kami_academic.md + themes/kami_academic.css | warm parchment academic theme |
Scenario Format Index
HTML output for any format must satisfy the Editable HTML Contract below.
format_id |
Scenario file | Required structure | Special constraints |
|---|---|---|---|
journal_article |
scenarios/journal_article.md | Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Results, Discussion, Methods, Data Availability, Code Availability, Acknowledgements, References, SI note | figure/table numbering, data/code statements, guideline checks when applicable |
conference_paper |
scenarios/conference_paper.md | Title, Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Method, Experiments, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References, Appendix | page limit, baseline and ablation completeness, optional LaTeX |
grant_application |
scenarios/grant_proposal.md | title, abstract, background, gap, aims, research content, key scientific questions, technical route, innovation, feasibility, plan, expected outcomes, team, budget, references | form-like blocks, word limits, aim-route consistency |
lab_report |
scenarios/lab_report.md | experiment name, date, operator, purpose, materials, steps, raw observations, data processing, results, abnormal events, conclusion, next step | raw observation separated from interpretation |
group_report |
scenarios/group_report.md | progress, core question, evidence, current conclusion, blockers, discussion questions, next plan | scan-friendly, short sections |
conference_talk |
scenarios/conference_talk.md | opening, audience context, problem, key idea, evidence sequence, takeaway, Q&A, speaker notes | every figure has a spoken takeaway |
workshop_share |
scenarios/workshop_share.md | prerequisites, materials, steps, checkpoints, expected outputs, troubleshooting, Q&A | reproducible from a clean environment |
revision_response |
scenarios/revision_response.md | Reviewer X Comment Y, Comment, Response, Changes Made, Status | preserve every comment |
Required Outputs
{workdir}/triage.md{workdir}/draft/paper.md(Markdown source of truth){workdir}/report/<slug>_preview.html{workdir}/quality/claim_evidence_report.md{workdir}/quality/reviewer_report.md— submissions, grants, rebuttals, high-risk tasks only
Rendering Templates
| Template | File | Output |
|---|---|---|
report_standard |
report_standard.md | Professional report (Manus-style), HTML+CSS |
report_academic |
report_academic.md | Formal academic paper, HTML+CSS |
latex_cn |
latex_cn.md | Chinese academic paper, LaTeX → PDF |
latex_en |
latex_en.md | English academic paper, LaTeX → PDF |
Standard rendering flow
- Read report_standard.md for the HTML+CSS template.
- Convert
draft/paper.mdto HTML, wrapping major sections per the Editable HTML Contract below. - Apply the selected theme. Write
{workdir}/report/<slug>_preview.html.
Academic rendering flow (LaTeX → PDF)
- Read the LaTeX template (
latex_cn.mdorlatex_en.mdbased on language). - Convert
draft/paper.mdto LaTeX, fill the template, write<slug>.tex. - Read COMPILE.md — probe available engines before compiling.
- Also produce an HTML preview via report_academic.md.
Evidence Layer
Evidence skills decide where facts come from. Claims may not be invented or grounded in model memory; they must trace back to a registered piece of evidence.
| Need | Where |
|---|---|
| Search and fetch open-access papers by DOI / arXiv / PMID | paper_fetch.md |
| Register claims and supporting evidence | Evidence Registry below |
| Ground citations to specific text segments, rerank, attribute sentences | writing/claim_evidence_check.md ("Citation Grounding" section) |
| Write data and code availability statements | scenarios/journal_article.md ("Data and Code Availability" section) |
Default pipeline: paper_fetch → evidence_summary → evidence_registry → draft → citation grounding
Evidence Registry — claim_evidence_map.md
| Claim ID | Claim | Evidence type | Source | Strength | Risk | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | … | citation/figure/table/data/user_material/missing | S001 | strong | low | keep |
Evidence types: citation, figure, table, experimental_data, statistical_result, user_material, missing. Claims with missing evidence cannot appear as firm conclusions. If support is partial, narrow the wording.
Evidence Summary — output table
| Evidence ID | Source | Passage/page | Query answered | Summary | Score | Claim IDs |
|---|
Preserve locator detail for later attribution. Separate the source's statement from the agent's interpretation. If evidence does not answer the query, say so; do not force fit.
Context-Bound Answering
Answer only from provided context. Cite context keys, evidence IDs, pages, or material IDs. If context is insufficient, write I cannot answer from the provided context and list what is missing. Do not fall back to model memory.
Quality Gates
Gates produce reports and risk flags — guardrails, not gatekeepers. Flag issues and suggest fixes; do not silently rewrite a draft to hide problems. Aim for ≥80% compliance; prioritize critical issues (missing data, unsupported claims, fabricated citations) over cosmetic formatting.
| Gate | Where | report |
submission |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manuscript coverage | inlined below | ✅ | ✅ |
| Format lint | inlined below | ✅ | ✅ |
| Reproducibility | inlined below | ✅ | ✅ |
| HTML editability | Editable HTML Contract below | ✅ | ✅ |
| Claim / evidence + citation grounding | writing/claim_evidence_check.md | ❌ | ✅ |
| Reviewer simulation (NeurIPS-style) | writing/reviewer_rubric.md | ❌ | ✅ |
| Reporting guideline (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA) | reporting_guideline_check.md | ❌ | ✅ clinical only |
| Response consistency | scenarios/revision_response.md | ❌ | ✅ revision_response only |
Run order: manuscript coverage → format lint → reproducibility → claim/evidence → reporting guideline → reviewer simulation → HTML editability → response consistency.
Manuscript Coverage Check
Core sections (required): Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References. Optional (journal-dependent): Keywords, Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Author Contributions, Competing Interests, Data/Code Availability, Supplementary Materials.
| Section | Must contain |
|---|---|
| Abstract | background → gap → method → results → conclusion |
| Introduction | background → related work → gap → contribution |
| Methods | design, materials, procedure, parameters, analysis |
| Results | main findings, figures, tables, statistics, subsections by question |
| Discussion | interpretation, comparison, limitations, future, take-home |
Output: ## Manuscript Coverage Report with completeness %, present/complete list, missing/incomplete list, recommendation. Gate: ≥90% excellent / 80-89% good / <80% major sections missing.
Format Lint
Check: section structure complete; figure/table numbering sequential with captions; references numbered, no gaps, consistent format; word/page limits met; supplementary files referenced and numbered.
Output: ## Format Lint Report with compliance %, correct categories, issues (severity + location + action), word count vs limit, recommendation.
Common limits (always verify against journal guidelines):
| Journal | Abstract | Main text | Figures | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature/Science | 150-200 | 3-4k words | 4-6 | 30-50 |
| Cell | 150 | 5k | 7 | 80 |
| NeurIPS | 250 | 8 pages | — | — |
| PLOS ONE | 300 | none | none | none |
Gate: ≥90% excellent / 80-89% fix flagged / <80% major problems.
Reproducibility Check
Audit categories (each must be present and concrete): software & tools (names, versions, OS, libraries); parameters & settings (hyperparameters, seeds, hardware); data (source, version, splits, availability); code (repo URL, license, dependencies, reproducibility script).
Output: ## Reproducibility Check Report with compliance %, sufficient detail list, missing/vague list (current text + fix), availability statement templates, recommendation. Gate: ≥90% excellent / 80-89% good / 70-79% fair / <70% major revision.
Editable HTML Contract
All HTML outputs must be standalone working files, not app-only previews.
<section class="editable-block" contenteditable="true"
data-block-id="abstract-001" data-section="abstract"
data-source="draft/paper.md" data-format-role="summary">
<h2>Abstract</h2><p>…</p>
</section>Required: single file with embedded CSS; semantic tags (section, figure, figcaption, table, caption); @page or @media print; no frontend runtime required; no absolute positioning for body layout.
| Attribute | Meaning |
|---|---|
data-block-id |
stable local block identifier |
data-section |
manuscript/report section |
data-source |
source file, usually draft/paper.md |
data-format-role |
summary, claim, evidence, method, response |
Validation (run after every HTML generation): file opens standalone; CSS embedded; main text is semantic HTML not an image; major blocks have contenteditable="true" and all four data-* attributes; print CSS present; figures/tables use semantic tags. If any criterion fails, fix the renderer or source Markdown — do not relax the contract.
Non-Negotiable Rules
- Do not write unsupported claims. Mark missing evidence and downgrade or remove the claim.
- Do not invent citations, DOIs, accession IDs, page numbers, data repositories, reviewer changes, or experimental results.
- Do not let a search result become evidence until it is summarized, attributed, and bound to a specific claim in the Evidence Registry above.
- Do not use Sci-Hub or any access-control bypass. Open PDF fetching may use only legal OA routes in paper_fetch.md.
- Do not output screenshot-like reports. Main text must remain semantic and editable HTML per the Editable HTML Contract above.
- Keep each
SKILL.mdbelow 500 lines.
Sources
- Anthropic skill design — https://github.com/anthropics/skills/blob/main/skills/skill-creator/SKILL.md
- Anthropic doc coauthoring — https://github.com/anthropics/skills/blob/main/skills/doc-coauthoring/SKILL.md
- Trail of Bits workflow skill design — https://github.com/trailofbits/skills/blob/main/plugins/workflow-skill-design/skills/designing-workflow-skills/SKILL.md
- PaperQA evidence RAG — https://github.com/Future-House/paper-qa
- OpenScholar attribution — https://github.com/akariasai/openscholar
- Nature-style response/figure/citation/data skills — https://github.com/Yuan1z0825/nature-skills
- DeepScientist outline/review/rebuttal/writer skills — https://github.com/ResearAI/DeepScientist
- Research-Paper-Writing-Skills (Master-cai, MIT) — abstract / introduction / method / results / discussion section guides
- AI-Scientist (SakanaAI, MIT) — NeurIPS-style reviewer rubric
- EQUATOR Network — reporting guideline checklists
- tw93/Kami (MIT) — academic theme
先判断是否适合
作者设计意图
作者的方法与取舍
边界和复核