--- name: academic-paper-composer description: 'Systematic writing framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. Use when users want to: (1) write a paper from a detailed outline, (2) ensure quality control during writing, (3) maintain consistency across chapters, (4) prepare a submission-ready manuscript, or (5) systematically execute a planned paper. Triggered by phrases like ''write the paper from this outline,'' ''compose the full manuscript,'' ''execute the outline,'' or when users have completed strategic planning (academic-paper-strategist skill) and are ready to write. Takes optimized outline as input; outputs complete manuscript with iterative quality checks.' --- # Academic Paper Composer ## Overview This skill provides a systematic framework for writing academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. It implements iterative quality control at both chapter-level and paper-level, ensuring consistent high quality throughout the writing process. **Input**: Detailed, optimized paper outline (from academic-paper-strategist or equivalent) **Output**: Complete, submission-ready manuscript with quality validation reports **Prerequisite**: Use **academic-paper-strategist** skill first to create optimized outline (or provide equivalent detailed outline) --- ## When to Use This Skill Use **academic-paper-composer** when you need to: **Writing Stage**: - Execute a detailed paper outline systematically - Write a complete academic paper chapter-by-chapter - Maintain quality control during writing process - Ensure consistency across all sections **Quality Assurance Stage**: - Validate each chapter before proceeding - Check cross-chapter coherence - Perform final quality assessment - Verify submission readiness **Submission Preparation Stage**: - Prepare manuscript for platform submission - Complete platform-specific checklists - Generate final submission package **Triggers**: - "Write the paper from this outline" - "Compose the full manuscript" - "Execute the outline systematically" - "I have an outline, help me write the paper" - After completing academic-paper-strategist skill --- ## Workflow Overview ``` Phase 4: SYSTEMATIC WRITING (Chapter-by-Chapter + Quality Gates) ↓ Phase 5: QUALITY CONTROL (Final Validation + Submission Prep) ↓ Output: Submission-Ready Manuscript + Quality Reports ``` **Quality Gates**: After each chapter + final paper evaluation --- ## Required Input Before using this skill, you must provide: ### 1. Optimized Detailed Outline **Required structure**: ```markdown ## Abstract (250-300 words) - [Key points to cover] ## 1. Introduction (1,500 words) ### 1.1 Opening Puzzle (400 words) - [Content guidance] ### 1.2 Literature Review (600 words) - [Theories to discuss] ### 1.3 This Paper's Contribution (500 words) - [Specific claims] ## 2. [Main Chapter Title] (1,200 words) ### 2.1 [Section] (400 words) - [Argument structure] - [Key citations] ... [Complete structure with word counts and content guidance] ``` **Quality check**: Outline should specify: - ✓ Chapter titles and word counts - ✓ Subsection structure (to 3rd level) - ✓ Content guidance for each section - ✓ Key citations to include - ✓ Argument structure notes If outline lacks these, consider using **academic-paper-strategist** first. ### 2. Platform Writing Standards Guide **From academic-paper-strategist Phase 1**, or equivalent document specifying: - Platform style patterns (voice, terminology, citation format) - Structural conventions - Example papers for reference ### 3. Literature Base (Optional but Recommended) - List of core papers to cite - Research gap analysis - Key concepts to emphasize --- ## Phase 4: Systematic Writing ### Goal Write complete manuscript chapter-by-chapter with iterative quality control. ### Workflow #### Step 4.1: Writing Environment Setup Before writing, I will: 1. **Verify outline completeness**: - All chapters specified with word counts - Content guidance provided - Argument structure clear 2. **Load reference documents**: - Platform writing standards - Section writing guides (`references/section_guides.md`) - Quality standards (`references/writing_standards.md`) 3. **Create writing tracker**: ```markdown # Writing Progress Tracker - [ ] Abstract (250 words) - [ ] Chapter 1: Introduction (1,500 words) - [ ] Chapter 2: [Title] (1,200 words) ... - [ ] Conclusion (1,000 words) - [ ] References ``` **Decision Point 1**: Confirm outline and standards loaded, ready to begin writing. #### Step 4.2: Chapter-by-Chapter Writing **For each chapter, I will follow this sequence**: ##### A. Pre-Writing Review Before writing chapter N: 1. **Review outline specification** for this chapter: - Word count target - Subsection structure - Content guidance - Key arguments/citations 2. **Review previous chapter** (if N>1): - Last paragraph of chapter N-1 - Key concepts introduced - Promises to fulfill 3. **Check section guide**: - Load appropriate template from `references/section_guides.md` - Review quality markers for this section type ##### B. Writing Execution I will write the chapter following: **Content principles**: - **Follow outline exactly**: Respect structure and word counts - **Include specified citations**: Use literature from outline - **Maintain platform style**: Match voice and terminology - **Use section templates**: Follow appropriate guide from `section_guides.md` **Quality targets (pre-emptive)**: - Argument quality: Clear thesis, justified premises - Citation quality: All claims supported, proper format - Clarity: Precise prose, terms defined, good transitions - Structure: Logical flow, proper proportions - Style conformity: Match platform conventions **Output**: Complete chapter draft ##### C. Post-Writing Evaluation After completing chapter draft, I will: 1. **Create evaluation document**: ```bash python scripts/chapter_quality_check.py # Option 1: Create template for this chapter ``` 2. **Perform 5-dimension assessment**: - **Argument Quality** (1-4): Thesis clear? Premises justified? Objections addressed? - **Citation Quality** (1-4): All claims cited? Format consistent? Key literature included? - **Clarity & Readability** (1-4): Prose clear? Terms defined? Transitions smooth? - **Structure & Flow** (1-4): Logical progression? Proper proportions? Follows outline? - **Platform Conformity** (1-4): Style match? Voice consistent? Format correct? 3. **Generate quality report**: ```bash python scripts/chapter_quality_check.py # Option 2: Generate report from evaluation ``` This produces: - Total score (X/20) - Pass/fail (threshold: ≥16/20) - Weak dimensions identified - Specific revision recommendations **Quality Gate 4A** (After Each Chapter): - ✓ Score ≥16/20 (80%) - ✓ All dimensions ≥3/4 (or revisions implemented) - ✓ Word count within ±10% of target **If Failed**: Implement revisions before proceeding to next chapter ##### D. Iteration (If Needed) If chapter scores <16/20: 1. **Identify weak dimension(s)**: Which scored <3/4? 2. **Implement targeted revisions**: - Argument quality issue → Add justifications, address objections - Citation quality issue → Add supporting citations, fix format - Clarity issue → Simplify prose, add definitions, improve transitions - Structure issue → Reorganize paragraphs, adjust proportions - Style issue → Adjust voice, terminology, format 3. **Re-evaluate**: Generate new quality report 4. **Repeat until passing** (typically 1-2 iterations) **Important**: Do not proceed to next chapter until current chapter passes quality gate. ##### E. Chapter Completion Once chapter passes quality gate: 1. **Mark chapter complete** in writing tracker 2. **Save chapter with quality report** 3. **Note key concepts introduced** (for coherence check later) 4. **Preview next chapter** requirements **Decision Point 2** (After Major Chapters): After completing each main body chapter, I will: - Present completed chapter summary - Show quality score - Ask: Proceed to next chapter or revise further? #### Step 4.3: Writing Sequence **Recommended order**: 1. **Introduction** (write first) - Establishes thesis and roadmap - Use introduction guide from `section_guides.md` - Quality check: Abstract promises, literature coverage, clear contribution 2. **Main Body Chapters** (in outline order) - Follow outline sequence - Quality check after each - Build on previous chapters 3. **Conclusion** (write after main body) - Synthesizes findings - Addresses introduction promises - Use conclusion guide from `section_guides.md` 4. **Abstract** (write last) - Summarizes complete paper - Use abstract guide from `section_guides.md` - Quality check: Standalone, accurate, compelling 5. **References** (compile throughout) - Format according to platform standards - Verify all citations present #### Step 4.4: Cross-Chapter Coherence Check After all chapters written, before final evaluation: 1. **Terminology consistency**: - Extract key terms from each chapter - Verify consistent usage throughout - Check definitions consistent 2. **Argument flow**: - Verify chapter N+1 builds on chapter N - Check roadmap (intro) matches execution - Ensure conclusion addresses introduction promises 3. **Citation patterns**: - Check for uneven citation distribution - Verify key works cited where relevant - Ensure bibliography complete **Output**: Cross-chapter coherence report identifying any inconsistencies --- ## Phase 5: Quality Control ### Goal Perform comprehensive final evaluation and prepare submission-ready manuscript. ### Workflow #### Step 5.1: Content Completeness Check Using structured checklist, verify: **Structural Completeness**: - [ ] Abstract (250-300 words) - [ ] Introduction with all required elements - [ ] All outlined main chapters present - [ ] Conclusion with all required elements - [ ] References section formatted correctly **Content Completeness**: - [ ] All introduction promises fulfilled - [ ] All claims supported by evidence or argument - [ ] All technical terms defined - [ ] All objections addressed - [ ] All limitations acknowledged **Citation Completeness**: - [ ] Every citation in text has bibliography entry - [ ] Every bibliography entry cited in text - [ ] Citation format consistent throughout - [ ] All citations include necessary information **Format Completeness**: - [ ] Title page (if required) - [ ] Section numbering consistent - [ ] Heading hierarchy logical - [ ] Figure/table captions (if applicable) **Output**: Completeness checklist report #### Step 5.2: Final 7-Dimension Evaluation I will perform comprehensive evaluation using: ```bash python scripts/final_evaluation.py # Create evaluation template ``` **7 Dimensions** (10 points each, 70 total): 1. **Overall Argument Quality** (1-10) - Thesis clarity throughout - Chapter integration - Logical completeness - Objections addressed 2. **Literature Integration** (1-10) - Citation count (40-60 typical for philosophy) - Key literature covered - Citations well-integrated - Critical engagement present 3. **Clarity & Accessibility** (1-10) - Prose clarity - Complex ideas explained - Appropriate for audience - Technical terms defined 4. **Originality & Contribution** (1-10) - Clear original contribution - Advance over literature - Significance established - Innovation present 5. **Methodological Rigor** (1-10) - Method explicit and justified - Consistently applied - Appropriate for question - Limitations acknowledged 6. **Structure & Organization** (1-10) - Logical flow - Optimal organization - Proportions balanced - Transitions seamless 7. **Platform & Style Conformity** (1-10) - Style matches platform - Format correct - Voice consistent - Citation format perfect **Scoring Process**: 1. Evaluate each dimension (1-10) 2. Provide detailed notes for each 3. Complete completeness checklist 4. List any specific issues **Generate report**: ```bash python scripts/final_evaluation.py # Generate final report ``` This produces: - Total score (X/70) - Pass/fail (threshold: ≥56/70) - Weak dimensions identified - Completeness assessment - Prioritized revision recommendations - Submission readiness decision **Quality Gate 5** (Final): - ✓ Score ≥56/70 (80%) - ✓ All completeness checklist items complete - ✓ All high-priority issues addressed **If Failed**: Implement revisions and re-evaluate #### Step 5.3: Revision Implementation (If Needed) If final score <56/70 or completeness incomplete: 1. **Prioritize revisions**: - HIGH priority: All issues affecting score or completeness - MEDIUM priority: Issues improving quality - LOW priority: Optional enhancements 2. **Implement systematically**: - Address high-priority first - Document changes - Maintain style consistency 3. **Re-evaluate**: - Generate new final report - Verify score ≥56/70 - Check completeness 100% 4. **Iterate until passing** **Decision Point 3**: After final evaluation, I will: - Present final score and assessment - Show submission readiness status - Recommend: Submit immediately / Implement optional improvements / Required revisions - Ask: Proceed with submission or implement further improvements? #### Step 5.4: Submission Package Preparation Once final evaluation passes: 1. **Platform-specific checklist**: - **PhilArchive/PhilPapers**: - [ ] PDF format - [ ] Abstract <500 words - [ ] Metadata (title, keywords, classification) - [ ] Author information complete - **arXiv**: - [ ] LaTeX or PDF format - [ ] Abstract <1920 characters - [ ] Category selection correct - [ ] No font embedding issues - **PhilSci-Archive**: - [ ] PDF format - [ ] Subject classification - [ ] Keywords (3-5) - [ ] No copyright issues 2. **Generate final outputs**: - Formatted manuscript (PDF or LaTeX) - Abstract (separate file if needed) - Metadata file - Cover letter (if applicable) 3. **Pre-submission verification**: - Re-read complete paper - Check all formatting - Verify all links/citations work - Proofread for typos **Output**: Complete submission package ready for platform upload --- ## Complete Output Package Upon completion of both phases, you receive: ### Quality Reports 1. **Chapter Quality Reports** (one per chapter) - 5-dimension scores - Pass/fail status - Revision recommendations implemented 2. **Cross-Chapter Coherence Report** - Terminology consistency check - Argument flow verification - Citation pattern analysis 3. **Final Evaluation Report** ⭐ **Key Document** - 7-dimension comprehensive assessment - Completeness checklist (100%) - Submission readiness decision - Platform-specific checklist ### Manuscript Files 1. **Complete Manuscript** ⭐ **Main Deliverable** - All chapters integrated - Properly formatted - Citations complete - Submission-ready 2. **Abstract** (separate file) - Standalone 250-300 words - Platform-formatted 3. **Metadata Document** - Title, keywords, classification - Author information - Platform-specific requirements ### Supporting Documentation 1. **Writing Progress Tracker** - All chapters completed - Quality scores logged - Revision history 2. **Citation List** - All references used - Formatted for platform - Verified complete --- ## Quality Assurance System ### Quality Standards Reference For detailed evaluation criteria, all standards are defined in: ```markdown references/writing_standards.md ``` This document provides: - Chapter-level quality standards (5 dimensions) - Final quality standards (7 dimensions) - Section-specific quality criteria - Scoring rubrics - Issue identification and fixes ### Section Writing Guides For guidance on writing each section type: ```markdown references/section_guides.md ``` This provides: - Abstract writing template and checklist - Introduction structure (6 subsections) - Main body chapter templates (4 types) - Conclusion structure - Transition strategies - Platform-specific style guidance - Common mistakes and fixes ### Evaluation Scripts Two Python scripts support quality validation: #### 1. Chapter Quality Check ```bash python scripts/chapter_quality_check.py ``` **Function**: Evaluates individual chapters against 5-dimension standards - Creates evaluation templates - Calculates scores and pass/fail - Identifies weak dimensions - Generates revision recommendations - Supports multi-chapter comparison **When to Use**: After writing each chapter (Step 4.2.C) #### 2. Final Paper Evaluation ```bash python scripts/final_evaluation.py ``` **Function**: Evaluates complete paper against 7-dimension standards - Comprehensive quality assessment - Completeness checklist validation - Submission readiness determination - Platform-specific preparation - Generates final report with recommendations **When to Use**: After all chapters complete (Step 5.2) --- ## Decision Points (Interactive) This skill has **3 key decision points** where I pause for your input: ### Decision Point 1: Writing Commencement (Step 4.1) **I provide**: Loaded outline, standards, and writing plan **You confirm**: Ready to begin writing / Need adjustments ### Decision Point 2: Chapter Completion (Step 4.2.E) **I provide**: Completed chapter with quality score **You decide**: Proceed to next / Revise further / Adjust approach **Frequency**: After each main body chapter (3-5 times typically) ### Decision Point 3: Final Submission (Step 5.3) **I provide**: Final evaluation report with score and readiness assessment **You decide**: Submit immediately / Implement optional improvements / Additional revisions --- ## Example Usage ### User Request "I have the optimized outline from the strategist skill. Please write the complete paper on self-continuity during sleep." ### Skill Response **Phase 4: Systematic Writing** 1. **Setup**: Outline loaded (6 chapters, 9,600 words total). Platform: PhilArchive. Standards loaded. ✓ 2. **Chapter 1 - Introduction (1,500 words)**: - Writing... [follows outline structure] - Self-evaluation: Argument 4/4, Citation 3/4, Clarity 4/4, Structure 3/4, Style 4/4 - Score: 18/20 ✓ PASS - **Decision Point 2**: Proceed to Chapter 2? 3. **Chapter 2 - Narrative Compression Framework (1,200 words)**: - Writing... [develops theoretical framework] - Self-evaluation: All dimensions 3-4 - Score: 17/20 ✓ PASS - **Decision Point 2**: Proceed to Chapter 3? 4. **Chapter 3-5**: [Similar process for each chapter] 5. **Chapter 6 - Conclusion (1,000 words)**: - Writing... [synthesizes findings] - Score: 18/20 ✓ PASS 6. **Abstract (280 words)**: - Writing... [summarizes complete paper] - Score: 19/20 ✓ PASS 7. **Cross-Chapter Coherence**: Terminology consistent ✓, Argument flow verified ✓, Citations complete ✓ **Phase 5: Quality Control** 1. **Completeness Check**: All items complete ✓ (18/18) 2. **Final Evaluation**: - Overall Argument: 9/10 - Literature Integration: 8/10 (48 citations) - Clarity: 9/10 - Originality: 8/10 - Methodology: 8/10 - Structure: 9/10 - Platform Fit: 9/10 - **Total: 60/70 (85.7%)** ✓ PASS 3. **Decision Point 3**: Paper scored 60/70 (Good quality, ready for submission). Submit now or implement optional improvements? 4. **Submission Package**: PDF generated, metadata prepared, PhilArchive checklist complete ✓ **Output**: Submission-ready manuscript + comprehensive quality reports --- ## Tips for Best Results ### Provide Complete Outline - The more detailed your outline, the better the writing quality - Include content guidance for each section - Specify key citations and argument structure - Indicate expected word counts ### Trust the Iterative Process - Chapter-level quality gates ensure each section is solid - Don't skip quality checks (they prevent cascading problems) - Revisions at chapter-level are easier than whole-paper revisions ### Engage at Decision Points - Your input at decision points shapes the final manuscript - Feel free to request additional revisions even if chapter passes - Provide feedback on style or emphasis ### Use Quality Reports - Chapter reports show specific weaknesses - Final report provides objective submission readiness assessment - Use reports to track improvement across chapters ### Leverage Section Guides - I reference `section_guides.md` for each section type - You can review these guides directly if you want to understand the approach - Guides include templates, examples, and common mistakes --- ## Integration with Academic-Paper-Strategist This skill is designed to work seamlessly with **academic-paper-strategist**: **Ideal workflow**: 1. Use **academic-paper-strategist** to: - Identify optimal platform - Conduct literature search - Identify research gaps - Assess originality - Generate optimized detailed outline 2. Use **academic-paper-composer** (this skill) to: - Execute the outline systematically - Maintain quality control during writing - Produce submission-ready manuscript **Can be used standalone**: If you already have a detailed outline from another source, you can use this skill directly (skip strategist). --- ## Limitations and Notes - **Requires detailed outline**: Vague outlines produce lower-quality output; specificity is key - **Iterative process takes time**: Quality writing with validation requires patience; typical timeline: 1-2 days for 10,000-word paper - **Quality checks are systematic, not perfect**: Final human review recommended before submission - **Platform-specific formatting**: I adapt to platform standards, but you should verify final format - **Complementary to strategist skill**: Best results come from using both skills in sequence --- ## Common Issues and Solutions ### Issue 1: Chapter Fails Quality Gate **Symptom**: Score <16/20 after writing chapter **Solution**: 1. Review weak dimension(s) from report 2. Implement specific recommendations 3. Re-evaluate chapter 4. Typical fix time: 30-60 minutes **Prevention**: Follow section guides closely during initial writing ### Issue 2: Inconsistent Style Across Chapters **Symptom**: Some chapters feel different in tone or voice **Solution**: 1. Run cross-chapter coherence check (Step 4.4) 2. Identify inconsistent terminology or voice 3. Revise to match dominant style 4. Re-run check to verify **Prevention**: Reference platform standards before writing each chapter ### Issue 3: Low Final Score (<56/70) **Symptom**: Paper fails final quality gate **Solution**: 1. Identify weak dimensions from final report 2. Focus on dimensions scoring <7/10 3. Implement high-priority revisions systematically 4. Re-evaluate after revisions **Common causes**: Insufficient literature integration, unclear contribution, poor coherence ### Issue 4: Completeness Checklist Incomplete **Symptom**: Missing required elements **Solution**: 1. Review which category has incomplete items 2. Add missing elements (e.g., missing objections section, incomplete references) 3. Re-run completeness check **Prevention**: Use writing tracker throughout; check outline completeness before starting --- ## Platform-Specific Notes ### PhilArchive / PhilPapers - **Style**: First-person acceptable ("I argue") - **Length**: 5,000-12,000 words typical - **Citations**: APA or Chicago author-year - **Quality focus**: Philosophical rigor, argument clarity ### arXiv (Philosophy-adjacent) - **Style**: More formal, passive voice common - **Length**: Varies widely (3,000-20,000) - **Citations**: Varies by subcategory - **Quality focus**: Interdisciplinary clarity, technical precision ### PhilSci-Archive - **Style**: Bridges philosophical and scientific - **Length**: 6,000-15,000 words typical - **Citations**: Author-year typical - **Quality focus**: Integration of philosophy + science --- ## Summary **academic-paper-composer** transforms an optimized outline into a submission-ready manuscript through: 1. **Systematic Writing** (Phase 4): Chapter-by-chapter execution with 5-dimension quality checks after each (≥16/20 threshold) 2. **Quality Control** (Phase 5): Final 7-dimension assessment (≥56/70 threshold) + completeness validation + submission preparation **Quality Assurance**: Iterative evaluation at chapter and paper levels ensures consistent quality throughout. **Output**: Submission-ready manuscript with comprehensive quality reports documenting systematic validation. **Estimated Time**: 1-2 days for systematic writing and validation of 8,000-12,000 word paper (varies with outline detail and revision needs). --- ## Related Skills **Prerequisite**: academic-paper-strategist - Produces the optimized outline that this skill executes - Highly recommended to use first for best results **This skill can be used standalone**: If you have a detailed outline from another source, you can proceed directly with this skill.