Structures a technical paper's full logical skeleton using a thinking-template table (research background, limitations, key idea or goal, challenges, methodology modules, contributions), positions the paper as Technique or New Problem/Setting, and runs a four-point self-consistency check. Use when t

Tech Paper Template Overview Before drafting any prose, a technical paper needs a full logical skeleton: the research background, the specific limitations of prior work, the key idea or research goal, the technical challenges that prevent a naive solution, the methodology modules that address each challenge, and the contributions that the paper will claim. This skill fills in that skeleton via a standardised thinking template table, positions the paper type, and runs four self consistency checks on the logic chain. The output is a filled in thinking template plus a consistency report. It is suitable for advisor student brainstorming sessions, weekly progress meetings, and the final planning step before writing begins. It does not draft Introduction prose (use intro drafter for that); it operates at the logical skeleton layer. When to use this skill Early brainstorming of a paper project. Weekly progress meeting with an advisor or collaborator. Pre drafting planning after idea evaluator returns Strong Accept. The paper's logic chain feels incoherent and needs an audit. The user asks for 'paper skeleton', 'paper logic chain', 'thinking template', or 'paper structure planning'. The user is unsure whether their paper is Technique or New Problem/Setting. When NOT to use this skill The paper is a benchmark paper. Use benchmark paper template (separate plugin). The user needs an Introduction specific paragraph outline. Use intro drafter (typically run this skill first, then intro drafter ). The user has a written draft and wants review feedback. Use pre submission reviewer . The idea itself is not yet vetted. Use idea evaluator first. Core procedure Step 1: Paper type positioning See: references/paper types.md for the positioning criteria and worked examples. Decide Technique versus New Problem/Setting. In Technique, the Key Idea carries the narrative and Our Goal is a short bridge. In New Problem/Setting, Our Goal is the contribution and the Key Idea justifies feasibility. If the user's inputs describe a benchmark, stop and redirect to benchmark paper template (separate plugin). Step 2: Fill the thinking template See: references/thinking template.md for each template cell's content contract, what a strong cell looks like, and common failure modes. Fill the seven cells: 1. Research background. Scenario, importance, motivation. 2. Limitations 1 through 3 (2 is acceptable; more than 3 is not). 3. Key idea or Our Goal. One sentence. 4. Challenges 1 through 3 (similar cap). 5. Methodology modules. One module per challenge. 6. Contributions (3 or 4, each mapped to a section). If a cell is incomplete given the user's inputs, mark it as a gap with severity. Step 3: Run four self consistency checks See: references/consistency checks.md for the detailed checking procedure and examples of chain breaks. Run each check: 1. Limitations to Key Idea : does the Key Idea or Goal address the stated Limitations? If not, either the Limitations are wrong or the Key Idea is misaligned. 2. Key Idea to Challenges : do the Challenges arise naturally from implementing the Key Idea? If not, the challenges are invented to justify modules rather than derived from the idea. 3. Challenges to Methodology : does each methodology module address one challenge? If not, there is a module without justification or a challenge without a fix. 4. Methodology to Contributions : do the contributions cover each module or experimental result? If not, contributions are vague or promising more than the paper delivers. Every failure is CRITICAL. Step 4: Generate methodology outline See: references/thinking template.md for the methodology outline template. From the challenges, derive a methodology outline: topic sentence, per module subsection names, and per module one sentence summary. This becomes the skeleton for Section 3 or 4 of the paper. Step 5: Integrity gate Before emitting, run the checks in the Integrity gate section below. Step 6: Output Emit the filled template plus the consistency report in the Output format below. Integrity gate All seven bullets are [inspection] class: the LLM verifies each directly from the filled template (counting, pattern matching, or comparing cells). No user side attestation required. Before returning the filled template: 1. [inspection] Paper type positioning is consistent with the user's actual contribution (Technique paper not shoehorned into New Problem framing, or vice versa). 2. [inspection] Limitations are specific and cited able, not vague. 3. [inspection] Key Idea or Goal is a single sentence a reviewer could quote. 4. [inspection] Challenges derive from implementing the Key Idea; they are not invented. 5. [inspection] Methodology modules have one to one mapping with challenges. 6. [inspection] Contributions map to methodology modules and to specific sections. 7. [inspection] All four self consistency checks pass. If any check fails, mark the skeleton as "needs user attention". Output format 1. Paper type positioning Type: <Technique Paper or New Problem/Setting Paper Rationale: <one sentence 2. Thinking template Stage Your content Research background ... Limitation 1 ... Limitation 2 ... Limitation 3 (if applicable) ... Key Idea / Our Goal ... Challenge 1 ... Challenge 2 ... Challenge 3 (if applicable) ... Methodology topic sentence ... Module A (addresses Challenge 1) ... Module B (addresses Challenge 2) ... Module C (addresses Challenge 3) ... Contribution 1 ... (Section <X ) Contribution 2 ... (Section <Y ) Contribution 3 ... (Section <Z ) 3. Self consistency checks Check 1 Limitations Key Idea: <pass or fail Check 2 Key Idea Challenges: <pass or fail Check 3 Challenges Methodology: <pass or fail Check 4 Methodology Contributions: <pass or fail 4. Severity summary <n CRITICAL, <m MAJOR, <k MINOR. Top three fixes first: ... 5. Next suggested skill If all checks pass: intro drafter to produce the Introduction paragraph outline. If checks fail: address the flagged chain breaks first.

tech-paper-template