Paper writing bench
Skill woodfishhhh/EZ_math_model/skills/ez-math-model/external/paper-orchestra/skills/paper-writing-bench
Reverse-engineer raw materials (Sparse idea, Dense idea, experimental log) from an existing AI research paper to build a benchmark case for evaluating paper-writing pipelines. Replicates the PaperWritingBench dataset construction procedure from arXiv:2604.05018 §3 / App. C. TRIGGER when the user asks to "build a benchmark case from this paper", "reverse-engineer raw materials", or "evaluate my pipeline against PaperWritingBench".From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add woodfishhhh/EZ_math_model --skill paper-writing-benchAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
SKILL.md
5.5 KB, ~1.2k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
PaperWritingBench (§3)
Faithful implementation of the PaperWritingBench dataset construction procedure from PaperOrchestra (Song et al., 2026, arXiv:2604.05018, §3 and App. C, F.2).
The original benchmark contains 200 papers (100 CVPR 2025 + 100 ICLR 2025). For each paper, the authors reverse-engineer the (I, E) tuple by stripping narrative flow from the original PDF using the three prompts in App. F.2. You can use this skill to reverse-engineer your own benchmark cases from any paper PDF.
What this skill does
Given an existing AI research paper (PDF or markdown extract), produce:
idea.md(Sparse variant) — high-level concept note, no math, no experimental resultsidea.md(Dense variant) — detailed technical proposal with LaTeX equations and variable definitions, but still no experimental resultsexperimental_log.md— exhaustive raw experimental setup, numeric data, and qualitative observations, with all narrative references stripped
These three files form a complete (I, E) input pair for the
paper-orchestra pipeline. You can then run the pipeline and compare its
output to the original paper using paper-autoraters.
Inputs
- A paper PDF or extracted markdown text. The paper uses MinerU (Wang et al., 2024) for PDF→markdown extraction; you (the host agent) should use whatever PDF extractor your environment provides.
- For controlled experiments, you may also extract figures separately (PDFFigures 2.0 in the paper).
Outputs
bench/<paper_id>/idea_sparse.md— Sparse variantbench/<paper_id>/idea_dense.md— Dense variantbench/<paper_id>/experimental_log.md— Experimental log
Workflow
For each paper, run three independent LLM calls using the verbatim prompts below:
1. Sparse idea generation
Load references/sparse-idea-prompt.md. Pass the paper text (or
markdown extract) as {paper_content}. The prompt instructs the model to:
- Stop extracting at empirical verification (no Experiments / Results / Comparisons)
- Use first-person future tense ("We propose to explore...")
- Avoid LaTeX math; describe components by function
- Anonymize authors and titles
Output: idea_sparse.md with the four sections (Problem Statement, Core
Hypothesis, Proposed Methodology high-level, Expected Contribution).
2. Dense idea generation
Load references/dense-idea-prompt.md. Same input. The prompt instructs
the model to:
- Preserve mathematical formulations using LaTeX
- Define every variable used in equations
- Include specific architectural choices and dimensions
- Same exclusion zone (no experiments)
Output: idea_dense.md with the four sections (Problem Statement, Core
Hypothesis, Proposed Methodology detailed, Expected Contribution).
3. Experimental log generation
Load references/experimental-log-prompt.md. Same input. The prompt
instructs the model to:
- Use past-tense persona ("We ran...", "The results were...")
- Strip all references to figure/table numbers
- Deconstruct tables into raw numeric data
- Log figure findings as factual observations
- Anonymize authors
Output: experimental_log.md with sections for Setup, Raw Numeric Data,
and Qualitative Observations.
Critical rules from the prompts
These are excerpted from App. F.2. The host agent MUST honor them:
- No citations. None of the three outputs may contain
\cite, reference numbers, or author names from the source paper. - No URLs. Strip all hyperlinks.
- Anonymize. Author identities, affiliations, acknowledgements all removed.
- Self-contained. Each file must make sense without the original paper.
- No experimental leakage in idea files. The Sparse and Dense ideas must stop where empirical verification begins. They describe what will be done, not what was done.
- No table/figure references in experimental log. No "as shown in Table 1", "see Fig. 5". The downstream paper-orchestra pipeline will generate its own figures and tables — the log must not assume any particular ones exist.
- 100% numeric accuracy in experimental log. This becomes the ground truth for the section-writing-agent and content-refinement-agent's hallucination check.
How the bench is used
After producing (idea_sparse.md, idea_dense.md, experimental_log.md) for
a paper:
- Pick a variant (Sparse or Dense) — the paper ablates both, with Dense producing more rigorous methodology and Sparse exercising the system's robustness on under-specified inputs.
- Drop the chosen
idea.md, plusexperimental_log.md, plus atemplate.texfor the target conference, plus aconference_guidelines.md, into a paper-orchestra workspace. - Run the pipeline.
- Compare the generated paper against the original using
paper-autoraters(citation F1, lit review quality, SxS paper quality).
Resources
references/bench-overview.md— the 200-paper bench, venue cutoffs, sizesreferences/sparse-idea-prompt.md— verbatim from App. F.2references/dense-idea-prompt.md— verbatim from App. F.2references/experimental-log-prompt.md— verbatim from App. F.2
What ships with it: 4 files
13.4 KB alongside SKILL.md
references/
- bench-overview.md4.2 KB
- dense-idea-prompt.md3.2 KB
- experimental-log-prompt.md3.2 KB
- sparse-idea-prompt.md2.7 KB
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most docs writing skills give in ~1.2k tokens
Counted across 1,637 of the 3,044 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- Announce the skill at startin 54 of 1637, across 26 files
- Convert legacy doc files before editingin 45 of 1637, across 7 files
- Predict questions readers might askin 42 of 1637, across 4 files
- Generate clarifying questions for initial contextin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
- Create document scaffold with placeholder textin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
- Brainstorm content options for each sectionin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
- Test the document with a fresh context-less instancein 42 of 1637, across 3 files
- Include exact file paths in every taskin 42 of 1637, across 15 files
- Ask interview questions one at a timein 42 of 1637, across 27 files
- Apply surgical edits during refinementin 41 of 1637, across 2 files
- Offer structured workflow or freeformin 40 of 1637, across 1 file
- Ask for document meta-contextin 40 of 1637, across 2 files
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.