tech-paper-template

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.

1. 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.

1. Challenges to Methodology: does each methodology module

address one challenge? If not, there is a module without

justification or a challenge without a fix.

1. 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).

1. [inspection] Limitations are specific and cited-able, not

vague.

1. [inspection] Key Idea or Goal is a single sentence a

reviewer could quote.

1. [inspection] Challenges derive from implementing the Key

Idea; they are not invented.

1. [inspection] Methodology modules have one-to-one mapping

with challenges.

1. [inspection] Contributions map to methodology modules and

to specific sections.

1. [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.