Mode Selection

User request received
        |
        v
Is this about WRITING new content or REVIEWING existing content?
        |
        +---> Writing new paper -----> Use Writing Workflow
        |                              (references/writing-workflow.md)
        |
        +---> Reviewing/editing -----> Use Review Workflow
        |     existing manuscript      (references/review-workflow.md)
        |
        +---> Both/unclear ----------> Start with Review Workflow
                                       to assess, then write

Quick Reference

Writing a Paper

Clarify scope - topic, venue, format (IEEE/ACM)
Create outline - section-by-section plan
Draft core sections - methodology first, then results
Write supporting sections - intro, related work, discussion
Add citations - 15-20+ references
Review & polish - use checklists

See: references/writing-workflow.md

Reviewing a Manuscript

Extract core message - one sentence summary
Structural pass - overall organization
Section reviews - intro, results, discussion
Scientific clarity - claims, evidence, hedging
Language polish - terminology, voice
Formatting check - journal compliance

See: references/review-workflow.md

Core Resources

Resource	Purpose
`references/writing-workflow.md`	6-step paper writing process
`references/review-workflow.md`	8-step manuscript review process
`references/narrative-framework.md`	Section-by-section narrative structure (Problem->Solution->Evidence)
`references/clarity-principles.md`	Gopen & Swan sentence-level clarity
`references/academic-phrasebank.md`	Common academic phrases by section
`references/cs-conventions.md`	CS-specific writing conventions
`references/section-checklists.md`	Combined quality checklists
`references/ieee-formatting.md`	IEEE formatting specifications
`references/acm-formatting.md`	ACM formatting specifications

Templates

Template	Purpose
`templates/paper-structure.md`	Introduction arc, results paragraph, discussion templates
`templates/methodology.md`	Core message extraction, structural assessment, language guidelines

Evaluation

Use evaluators/rubric.json for quality scoring:

Structure and Organization (weight: 1.0)
Scientific Rigor (weight: 1.2)
Language and Clarity (weight: 1.0)
Section-Specific Quality (weight: 1.0)
Formatting Compliance (weight: 0.8)
Citation Quality (weight: 0.8)

Minimum threshold: Average score >= 3.5

Seven Core Principles

Clarity over cleverness - Scientific clarity beats stylistic elegance
Narrative shapes comprehension - Structure determines understanding
Audience dictates tone - Expert vs. general requires different framing
Format signals credibility - Professional formatting reflects rigor
Claims require evidence - Strong assertions need strong data
Each section has a job - Intro sells, Results show, Discussion interprets
Constraints shape structure - Word limits determine emphasis

Guardrails

Critical requirements:

Preserve author voice - edit for clarity, don't rewrite
Claims match data - flag overclaiming immediately
Quantitative rigor - statistics for all comparisons
Logical flow - clear transitions between sections
Appropriate hedging - match evidence strength
Consistent terminology - same term for same concept

Common pitfalls to avoid:

Overclaiming ("proves" when data only suggests)
Missing context (results without interpretation)
Buried lede (important findings hidden)
Inconsistent terms (alternating synonyms)
Vague descriptions ("some increase" vs "3-fold increase")

External Guides

Guide	Purpose
`external-guides/how-to-write-a-paper.md`	Practical conference paper structuring guidelines (Introduction paragraphs, experiments, tables/figures)

PDF Templates

assets/full_paper_template.pdf - IEEE template
assets/interim-layout.pdf - ACM template

academic-research-writing

Academic Research Writing

Overview

When to Use