---
name: voltpeer-plan
description: Organize the question, evidence, argument and outline of battery research papers, Reviews or Perspectives. Use for a new topic, figure-led Results order or a draft that has drifted.
---

# Battery paper argument and outline

<!-- execution-contract -->
For model/tool adaptation or resuming a task, read [the execution guide](references/EXECUTION.md). DeepSeek Flash uses short stages and checkpoints; DeepSeek Pro can plan larger text/evidence batches, with the same scientific checks. Reply in the user's language with the result, usable result/preview links and material unresolved questions. Keep mappings, configuration, logs and recovery records inside the project's `.voltpeer/` folder; do not link them in a normal final reply. Provide the corresponding source record only when the user explicitly requests provenance. Use only capabilities actually available in the current model and host.
<!-- /execution-contract -->

Use this for topic selection, a new outline, or recovery from scope drift. A short project brief is the durable decision record; [PROJECT_BRIEF.md](assets/templates/PROJECT_BRIEF.md) is an optional starter. If the user requests a narrower edit, preserve that scope.

For a research article reporting the author's actual experiments, read [research-article argument and outline](references/RESEARCH_ARGUMENT.md). Separate existing evidence, proposed interpretations and future experiments. The author decides the central scientific claim. For a Review/Perspective, use the literature-led route below.

## Decide what paper is being written

Define the intended reader and the decision the Review helps them make. Specify chemistry, cell format and application boundaries, time window, and whether the paper judges mechanisms, materials, engineering translation, or a combination. Name the article type honestly:

- Narrative/critical Review: transparent search strategy and deliberate synthesis; it does not claim exhaustive screening.
- Scoping review: maps the extent and types of evidence; use an appropriate scoping-review protocol and reporting guidance when claimed.
- Systematic review: predefine the question, eligibility, search, selection, extraction, and synthesis method; use the applicable reporting guidance.
- Perspective: advances a bounded thesis with selective, fairly represented evidence.

Check the target journal's article-type definition before locking the format. A journal may require an invitation or proposal before a Review submission.

## Novelty is a comparison, not a slogan

For the closest recent Reviews, record their title/DOI, publication date, sections actually inspected, organizing axis, evidence base, figures, blind spots, and overlap with the proposed paper. Label whether only an abstract, table of contents, or full text was seen. Then write the proposed distinct contribution as a testable sentence: *This Review changes the reader's assessment of ___ by comparing ___ under ___ conditions.* Claims such as “first” or “comprehensive” need a defined search and proof; omit them when that proof is unavailable.

Assess feasibility before promising a quantitative synthesis. Inventory primary papers with the conditions needed for the planned comparison, not merely search results. In a planned table, use `NR` only after checking the relevant original source and finding a field unreported; use `NV` while that source or section remains unchecked. If key metadata are sparse, change the figure to a conditions map, bounded case studies, or a missing-data analysis.

## Build the argument map

The brief should identify:

1. A single question and central judgement, with its strongest plausible objection.
2. In-scope and out-of-scope technologies and what is only background.
3. One argumentative role per major section: its question, evidence needed, counterevidence, and handoff to the next section.
4. A display-item budget and an owner/claim for each figure or table, checked against the venue's current limits.
5. Terms requiring consistent use, especially cell type, tested branch, capacity basis, energy boundary, “practical,” and “commercial.”
6. Missing evidence, assigned next actions, and decisions still open to the authors.

Record why an old proposal or figure plan was replaced. Before a large polish or compression pass, compare current abstract, headings, figure list, section emphasis, and conclusion to the current brief. If the manuscript now answers a neighboring question, surface a proposed plan amendment or restore the draft's intended argument. Do not silently change the paper's identity through local edits.

## Gate to drafting

Start section drafting when the angle has a defensible difference from neighboring Reviews and there is enough inspected primary evidence for its core claims. A provisional outline can be written earlier, but flag evidence-dependent sections. A planned section with no support is a research task, not a prose task.