Guides writing academic papers section by section using an 11-step workflow with LaTeX templates and counterintuitive writing tactics. Covers Abstract, Introduction, Method, Experiments, Related Work, Conclusion, and Supplementary. Use when: user asks to write or draft a paper section, needs LaTeX t

Paper Writing A systematic 11 step workflow for writing academic papers, with section specific templates and battle tested writing principles. When to Use This Skill User asks to write or draft a paper or paper section User needs LaTeX templates for Abstract, Introduction, Method, Experiments, etc. User wants to improve academic writing quality User mentions "paper writing", "write introduction", "draft method section", etc. Artifact Sources If you used upstream EvoSkills, pull these artifacts before writing: Source Skill Artifact Used In paper planning Story summary (task → challenge → insight → contribution → advantage) Steps 1 2 (Introduction writing plan) paper planning Module Motivation Mapping table Step 3 (Method subsections) paper planning Experiment plan (comparisons + ablations + demos) Step 5 (Experiments section) paper planning Pipeline figure sketch Steps 1, 6 (Method overview figure) paper planning Claim to experiment mapping Steps 2, 5 (Abstract, Introduction, Experiments) paper planning Fallback narrative (if planned) Steps 7 8 (Introduction / Conclusion pivot) experiment pipeline Stage 1 4 results, ablation tables, trajectory logs Step 5 (write experiments) experiment craft Failure analysis, implementation tricks Step 3 (Method section), Step 9 (limitations) The 11 Step Writing Process Follow these steps in order. Each step builds on the previous one. 1. Draw a pipeline figure sketch — Sketch the method's pipeline figure to clarify the overall approach. The figure highlights novelty, not just explanation. 2. Design the story and plan experiments — Outline the paper's story (core contribution, module motivations). List comparison experiments and ablation studies. Draft an Introduction writing plan. 3. Write Method — Organize the Method writing plan, then draft Method. Run experiments in parallel. 4. Revise Introduction and Method — Iterate on both sections while experiments continue. 5. Write Experiments — Once experiments are mostly done, organize the Experiments writing plan, then draft. 6. Polish figures — Finalize the pipeline figure. Create the teaser figure. 7. Write Related Work — List related papers, group into topics, write paragraphs. 8. Review the paper — Self review Introduction, Method, and Experiments. Use the paper review skill. 9. Write Abstract — Organize the Abstract writing plan, then draft. 10. Choose the title — List important keywords, then compose an informative title. 11. Iterate — Repeatedly review and revise the entire paper. Counterintuitive Writing Rules Apply these rules when aiming for higher acceptance probability: 1. Underclaim in prose, overdeliver in evidence : Reduce adjective intensity in Abstract/Introduction; let tables and figures carry the strength. 2. State one meaningful limitation early : A controlled limitation statement increases credibility and lowers reviewer suspicion. 3. Lead with mechanism, not only metric : Explain why the method works before listing numbers; reviewers trust causal logic more than isolated gains. 4. Prefer one decisive figure over many average figures : Build one "cannot ignore" figure that validates the central claim under hard conditions. 5. Remove weak but flashy claims : Any claim without direct evidence should be deleted, even if it sounds impressive. 6. Declare scope boundaries explicitly : One sentence in Introduction and Conclusion stating what your method targets reduces reviewer fear of hidden assumptions. 7. Show one failure case : Include one representative failure with diagnosis — it signals competence, not weakness. See [references/counterintuitive writing.md](references/counterintuitive writing.md) for all 7 tactics with before/after examples. Section Quick Reference Abstract Answer these questions before drafting: 1. What technical problem do we solve, and why is there no well established solution? 2. What is our technical contribution? 3. Why does our method fundamentally work? 4. What is our technical advantage / new insight? Three template versions: challenge first, insight bridge, multi contribution. See [references/abstract templates.md](references/abstract templates.md) Introduction Thinking process (reverse then forward): Reverse: (1) What is the technical problem? (2) What are our contributions? (3) Benefits and new insights? (4) How to lead into the challenge? Forward: (1) Task → (2) Previous methods → challenge → (3) Our contributions → (4) Technical advantages and insights Four ways to introduce the task, three ways to present challenges, four ways to describe the pipeline. See [references/introduction templates.md](references/introduction templates.md) Anti pattern : Never write "here is a naive solution, then our improvement" — this makes the work appear incremental. Method Every pipeline module needs three elements: 1. Module design — Data structure, network design, forward process (given X input, step 1..., step 2..., output Y) 2. Motivation — Why this module exists (problem driven: "A remaining challenge is...") 3. Technical advantages — Why this module works well Start with an Overview paragraph (setting + core contribution + section roadmap), then one subsection per module. See [references/method templates.md](references/method templates.md) Experiments Three key questions to answer: 1. How to prove our method is better → comparison experiments 2. How to prove our modules are effective → ablation studies 3. How to showcase the method's upper limit → demos on challenging data Ablation studies need: one big table (core contributions) + several small tables (design choices, hyperparameters). See [references/experiments guide.md](references/experiments guide.md) Related Work Three step process: 1. List papers closely related to our method (most important — missing key references can cause rejection) 2. Determine topics based on research direction and algorithm techniques 3. Organize writing plan based on listed papers See [references/related work guide.md](references/related work guide.md) Conclusion Must include Limitation section (reviewers frequently cite "no limitation" as a weakness) Limitation = task goal / setting limitations (like future work), NOT technical defects Rule: "If our method does not fall below current SOTA metrics, it is not a technical defect" Supplementary Material For page limited venues, decide what goes in main paper vs. supplementary: Core evidence for claims must stay in the main paper Implementation details, extra ablations, full visual galleries go in supplementary Reference supplementary at the point of need, not as a blanket statement See [references/supplementary guide.md](references/supplementary guide.md) Core Writing Principles 1. One message per paragraph — Each paragraph conveys exactly one point 2. Topic sentence first — The first sentence tells readers what this paragraph is about 3. Plan before writing — Outline the writing plan, refine each part, then write English sentences 4. Flow between sentences — Ensure logical continuity between consecutive sentences 5. Terminology consistency — Use the same term throughout; do not alternate names 6. Reverse outlining — After writing, extract the outline from paragraphs; check if the flow is smooth 7. Iterate relentlessly — Polish repeatedly, asking whether readers can follow See [references/writing principles.md](references/writing principles.md) Key Insight Visual polish directly influences review outcomes. See the paper planning skill's [figure design.md](../paper planning/references/figure design.md) for the full visual quality guide. Paper Title Guidelines The title attracts specific reviewers — choose keywords carefully Before writing the title, list important keywords, then compose Title must be informative : include the technique, task, or problem solved Avoid generic titles; specific phrases are more memorable LaTeX Assets [assets/paper skeleton.tex](assets/paper skeleton.tex) — Annotated LaTeX skeleton with section structure [assets/table style.tex](assets/table style.tex) — Booktabs table macros with color highlighting Handoff to Review Before invoking paper review , verify this checklist: [ ] All sections (Abstract, Introduction, Method, Experiments, Related Work, Conclusion) drafted [ ] Every claim in Abstract/Introduction anchored to a table or figure [ ] Limitation section present in Conclusion [ ] Pipeline figure and teaser figure finalized [ ] All \todo{} markers resolved or removed Section Navigation Section Reference File When to Load Abstract [abstract templates.md](references/abstract templates.md) Step 9: Writing abstract Introduction [introduction templates.md](references/introduction templates.md) Step 2: Story design Method [method templates.md](references/method templates.md) Step 3: Writing method Experiments [experiments guide.md](references/experiments guide.md) Step 5: Writing experiments Related Work [related work guide.md](references/related work guide.md) Step 7: Writing related work Writing Principles [writing principles.md](references/writing principles.md) Any time during writing Supplementary [supplementary guide.md](references/supplementary guide.md) Deciding main vs. supplementary content Counterintuitive strategy [counterintuitive writing.md](references/counterintuitive writing.md) Improving reviewer trust and novelty perception Writing Practice [writing practice.md](references/writing practice.md) Building writing ability through deliberate practice

paper-writing