Agentsociety generate paper

Paper Toolkit Skill

paper-toolkit is a deterministic Python CLI (no LLM calls). This skill directs Claude Code through writing, review, and revision while the CLI handles all reproducible operations: workspace state, evidence DAG, figure packing, BibTeX writing, LaTeX assembly, compile, and six checkers.

You own every judgment call (what to claim, which evidence supports it, review severity, revision class). The researcher remains the author of record; this skill assists them, it does not replace them.

The Iron Law

NO PROSE PATCHES FOR EVIDENCE OR STRUCTURE FAILURES.
NO RELEASE CLAIM WITHOUT A FRESH `paper check all` AND `paper compile-once`.

If paper check claim-coverage or paper check citations is failing, fix the evidence graph or refs.bib before touching section prose. If the deterministic checks have not been re-run since the last edit, you cannot claim the paper is ready. Skipping these steps is not a shortcut; it is a lie about state.

Read-These-First (per task)

Each prompt and reference is a required read for the task it owns, not a "see also" link. Open them with the Read tool, do not infer their contents from this index.

Task	MUST read before acting
Drafting any section	prompts/_writing_shared.md + prompts/writing_<section>.md
Picking an opening pattern	references/exemplar_patterns.md
Authoring a figure or table spec	references/figure_table_specs.md
Searching arXiv / CrossRef / OpenAlex	references/literature_search.md
Skeptical review	prompts/skeptical_review.md + references/review_rubric.md
Revision decision	prompts/revision_decision.md
Running a multi-section / multi-round project	prompts/_subagent_workflow.md
First time using a command	references/tool_catalog.md
Inspecting an envelope	references/envelope_schema.md
Reading a run.json	references/compile_run_schema.md
Reading a CheckReport	references/check_report_schema.md
Inspecting the evidence DAG	references/evidence_graph_schema.md

The Red Flags section below lists the "I don't need to read it" thoughts that mean you do.

Pre-reads apply mid-flow, not just at skill trigger time. When you transition from drafting to review, or from one section to another, the Read tool must touch the relevant prompt and references again — your context drifts and the prompts encode the discipline the next step needs.

Execution Modes

Two modes; the controller picks per task.

Direct mode (single-edit only): the controller CC reads the discipline prompts and drives the toolkit itself. ONLY appropriate for a single-section copyedit or a deterministic-checker fix-up. NOT appropriate for drafting new sections, running skeptical review, or making revision decisions.

Subagent-driven mode (REQUIRED for drafting and review): the controller dispatches fresh subagents per role (drafter, spec-reviewer, skeptical-reviewer, revision-decider). The skeptical-reviewer and revision-decider in particular MUST be subagents — running them in the same session that drafted the prose is a self-review and counts as skipping the review pass.

When dispatching, the controller's prompt to the subagent MUST include the relevant prompts/*.md + references/*.md paths as an explicit "Required reads" block. Subagent sessions start with empty context and will not find them otherwise. See prompts/_subagent_workflow.md for payload templates.

Iron Law of mode selection: do not switch modes mid-loop. If you started a section's draft → review → revise cycle in subagent-driven mode, finish it in subagent-driven mode; do not let the controller "just fix it directly" partway through (loses the audit trail).

Workflow Shape (not a phase machine)

A recommended sequence. You may reorder when a section is already mature, or when a review finding sends the work back to an earlier step.

intake -> framing -> evidence DAG -> drafting
                                        |
release <- revision <- skeptical review <- compile + checks

Step	Toolkit commands (run these — do not narrate them)
1. Intake	paper init, paper scan
2. Framing	(judgment — produces no toolkit artifact yet)
3. Evidence DAG	paper evidence add-claim/add-evidence/add-citation/link/validate, paper evidence topo-order
4. Drafting	paper template expand --section <name>, then edit paper/sections/<name>.tex
5. Compile + checks	paper compose pack-figures, paper compose write-bib, paper compose assemble-latex, paper compile-once, paper check all
6. Skeptical review	(LLM judgment; output to paper/reviews/skeptical-r<N>.md)
7. Revision decision	(LLM judgment; output to paper/reviews/revision-r<N>.md)
8. Release	(LLM judgment, communicate to user)

Loop 4 → 5 → 6 → 7 until verdict is PASS with only minor issues remaining, or until the researcher closes the loop.

The Deterministic Floor

These checks are the floor of review, not the ceiling. Run them and treat each finding as an input to the human-judgment review, not as a finding you re-derive.

Command	Replaces what kind of judgment
paper check style	em-dash, "in this paper we propose", 25 AI-tone phrases (warning), "replacing the researcher" framing (error). Do not re-list these rules in prose; read the checker output.
paper check citations	every \cite|\citep|\citet|\citealt|\citealp|\citeauthor|\citeyear in sections vs. refs.bib.
paper check figures	unreferenced figures, redundant Figure N. caption prefix, bad float placement, duplicate \label{} across sections.
paper check claim-coverage	orphan evidence, unsupported primary claims.
paper check word-count	sections outside the venue word range.
paper check logic-consistency	contradicting claims linked by a contradicts edge.
paper compile-once	LaTeX errors and warnings, with LatexError.file attributed to the source .tex.

Map deterministic findings into the rubric using references/review_rubric.md before spending tokens on Dimensions 1, 2, 4, 7 (which are pure judgment).

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"This section is short, I don't need an envelope after editing."	Every section edit must be followed by paper check style --section X and paper check word-count --section X. The envelope is the only record that the change was actually clean.
"The figure is obvious; I'll skip the evidence node."	A claim without an evidence node is invisible to paper check claim-coverage. The reviewer will catch it; the toolkit catches it first.
"The AI-tone warning is a false positive; I'll override."	Maybe. But override in the paper/venue.yaml (which is durable) or note it in the review file. Do not silently leave the warning unfixed and unjustified.
"The previous compile run is recent enough; I won't re-run."	If you edited a .tex file after r<N>, the previous run is stale. Re-run before claiming a verdict.
"I already read SKILL.md; I don't need to re-read the prompt."	SKILL.md is a router. The prompt files carry the discipline. Read them.
"The verb ladder is in my head; I don't need _writing_shared.md."	The ladder evolves with the venue config. Read the file each session.
"The review found one major issue; I'll batch the fix with three minor ones."	paper/reviews/revision-r<N>.md must record each fix separately for auditability. Batching is the enemy of monotonic progress.
"Citations are unused; I'll delete them from refs.bib."	An unused citation may belong to a deferred claim. Decide first, prune second; ask the researcher if unsure.
"I drafted this section, so I can also review it; I'll save a subagent dispatch."	Self-review is not review. Skeptical reviewer and revision decider MUST be dispatched as subagents distinct from the drafter — see prompts/_subagent_workflow.md.
"I read the prompt at the start of the skill; I don't need to re-Read it before review."	Each stage has its own pre-reads. Read them again when you move between drafting and review — context drift is real.

Red Flags (STOP if you catch yourself thinking)

• "I'll write the section first, then build the evidence graph."
• "The deterministic checker is too picky; I'll just keep going."
• "This review note is too detailed; I'll summarize and re-derive later."
• "The reviewer flagged it as fatal, but it's really just wording."
• "I don't need to re-run paper check all; my edits were small."
• "The watch-list is paranoid; this paper is meant to be ambitious."
• "I'll fix the prose to silence the checker."
• "The user did not ask for a review pass; the draft is good enough."

ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to the relevant step in the Workflow Shape table above.

Terminal Verification Checklist

Before reporting "the paper is ready" or "this section is done", confirm every box. If you cannot, you skipped a step.

• paper compile-once has been re-run since the last edit; latest run.json shows ok: true.
• paper check all has been re-run since the last edit; report has no errors (warnings are explicitly judged and recorded).
• Every claim node with strength: primary has a supporting evidence node (verify with paper check claim-coverage).
• Every \cite{} key in every section exists in refs.bib (verify with paper check citations).
• Every figure referenced in prose has a packed file in paper/figures/ and a FigureArtifact in paper.json (verify with paper check figures).
• The latest review note at paper/reviews/skeptical-r<N>.md has verdict PASS with only minor issues, or the researcher has explicitly accepted remaining major issues with a note in paper/reviews/revision-r<N>.md.
• Word counts for all sections are within the venue range (verify with paper check word-count).

Can't check all boxes? You skipped the deterministic floor. Return to step 5.

Hard Rules

1. No phase machine. Read each command envelope's state_summary; decide next from artifacts + user intent + review notes.
2. The toolkit owns paper/. Materials outside paper/ are read-only inputs.
3. Evidence graph is the source of truth for claims. If a checker flags an unsupported claim, fix the graph (add a node, add a link, weaken the claim's strength) before patching prose.
4. Severity and verdict come from the review pass. The revision step may not promote major to fatal for convenience or demote fatal to major to avoid a human gate.
5. Frame the system as assisting, not replacing. The style checker enforces this at error severity; do not argue with it.
6. No em-dash (---) in prose. The style checker enforces this.
7. Communicate the loop to the user. After each compile or review round, report the verdict, the highest-severity issue, and the chosen reroute target.

Quick-Start Loop (concrete commands)

paper init --title "..." --venue nature --workspace .
paper scan --workspace .

paper evidence add-claim --id c1 --label "..." --section intro --strength primary
paper evidence add-evidence --id e1 --label "..." --source-kind figure --source-ref fig1
paper evidence add-citation --id ref1 --cite-key levy2021 --label "..."
paper evidence link --src e1 --dst c1 --kind supports
paper evidence validate
paper evidence topo-order

# For each section the topo order suggests:
paper template expand --section intro --workspace .
# Read prompts/_writing_shared.md, then prompts/writing_intro.md.
# Edit paper/sections/intro.tex.
paper check style --section intro --workspace .
paper check word-count --section intro --workspace .

paper compose pack-figures --workspace .
paper compose write-bib --workspace .
paper compose assemble-latex --workspace .
paper compile-once --workspace .
paper check all --workspace .

# Read prompts/skeptical_review.md.
# Save review to paper/reviews/skeptical-r1.md.
# Read prompts/revision_decision.md.
# Save decisions to paper/reviews/revision-r1.md.
# Apply revisions and loop.