Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research composer

<!--

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/01-lishix520-academic-paper-skills/composer" ~/.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-research-composer && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: skills/01-lishix520-academic-paper-skills/composer/SKILL.md

source content

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:

## 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:

Verify outline completeness:
- All chapters specified with word counts
- Content guidance provided
- Argument structure clear
Load reference documents:
- Platform writing standards
- Section writing guides (
```
references/section_guides.md
```
  )
- Quality standards (
```
references/writing_standards.md
```
  )

Create writing tracker:

# 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:

Review outline specification for this chapter:
- Word count target
- Subsection structure
- Content guidance
- Key arguments/citations
Review previous chapter (if N>1):
- Last paragraph of chapter N-1
- Key concepts introduced
- Promises to fulfill
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:

Create evaluation document:

python scripts/chapter_quality_check.py
# Option 1: Create template for this chapter

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?

Generate quality report:

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:

Identify weak dimension(s): Which scored <3/4?
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
Re-evaluate: Generate new quality report
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:

Mark chapter complete in writing tracker
Save chapter with quality report
Note key concepts introduced (for coherence check later)
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:

Introduction (write first)
- Establishes thesis and roadmap
- Use introduction guide from
```
section_guides.md
```
- Quality check: Abstract promises, literature coverage, clear contribution
Main Body Chapters (in outline order)
- Follow outline sequence
- Quality check after each
- Build on previous chapters
Conclusion (write after main body)
- Synthesizes findings
- Addresses introduction promises
- Use conclusion guide from
```
section_guides.md
```
Abstract (write last)
- Summarizes complete paper
- Use abstract guide from
```
section_guides.md
```
- Quality check: Standalone, accurate, compelling
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:

Terminology consistency:
- Extract key terms from each chapter
- Verify consistent usage throughout
- Check definitions consistent
Argument flow:
- Verify chapter N+1 builds on chapter N
- Check roadmap (intro) matches execution
- Ensure conclusion addresses introduction promises
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:

python scripts/final_evaluation.py
# Create evaluation template

7 Dimensions (10 points each, 70 total):

Overall Argument Quality (1-10)
- Thesis clarity throughout
- Chapter integration
- Logical completeness
- Objections addressed
Literature Integration (1-10)
- Citation count (40-60 typical for philosophy)
- Key literature covered
- Citations well-integrated
- Critical engagement present
Clarity & Accessibility (1-10)
- Prose clarity
- Complex ideas explained
- Appropriate for audience
- Technical terms defined
Originality & Contribution (1-10)
- Clear original contribution
- Advance over literature
- Significance established
- Innovation present
Methodological Rigor (1-10)
- Method explicit and justified
- Consistently applied
- Appropriate for question
- Limitations acknowledged
Structure & Organization (1-10)
- Logical flow
- Optimal organization
- Proportions balanced
- Transitions seamless
Platform & Style Conformity (1-10)
- Style matches platform
- Format correct
- Voice consistent
- Citation format perfect

Scoring Process:

Evaluate each dimension (1-10)
Provide detailed notes for each
Complete completeness checklist
List any specific issues

Generate report:

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:

Prioritize revisions:
- HIGH priority: All issues affecting score or completeness
- MEDIUM priority: Issues improving quality
- LOW priority: Optional enhancements
Implement systematically:
- Address high-priority first
- Document changes
- Maintain style consistency
Re-evaluate:
- Generate new final report
- Verify score ≥56/70
- Check completeness 100%
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:

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
Generate final outputs:
- Formatted manuscript (PDF or LaTeX)
- Abstract (separate file if needed)
- Metadata file
- Cover letter (if applicable)
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

Chapter Quality Reports (one per chapter)
- 5-dimension scores
- Pass/fail status
- Revision recommendations implemented
Cross-Chapter Coherence Report
- Terminology consistency check
- Argument flow verification
- Citation pattern analysis
Final Evaluation Report ⭐ Key Document
- 7-dimension comprehensive assessment
- Completeness checklist (100%)
- Submission readiness decision
- Platform-specific checklist

Manuscript Files

Complete Manuscript ⭐ Main Deliverable
- All chapters integrated
- Properly formatted
- Citations complete
- Submission-ready
Abstract (separate file)
- Standalone 250-300 words
- Platform-formatted
Metadata Document
- Title, keywords, classification
- Author information
- Platform-specific requirements

Supporting Documentation

Writing Progress Tracker
- All chapters completed
- Quality scores logged
- Revision history
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:

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:

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

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

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

Setup: Outline loaded (6 chapters, 9,600 words total). Platform: PhilArchive. Standards loaded. ✓
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?
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?
Chapter 3-5: [Similar process for each chapter]
Chapter 6 - Conclusion (1,000 words):
- Writing... [synthesizes findings]
- Score: 18/20 ✓ PASS
Abstract (280 words):
- Writing... [summarizes complete paper]
- Score: 19/20 ✓ PASS
Cross-Chapter Coherence: Terminology consistent ✓, Argument flow verified ✓, Citations complete ✓

Phase 5: Quality Control

Completeness Check: All items complete ✓ (18/18)
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
Decision Point 3: Paper scored 60/70 (Good quality, ready for submission). Submit now or implement optional improvements?
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:

Use academic-paper-strategist to:
- Identify optimal platform
- Conduct literature search
- Identify research gaps
- Assess originality
- Generate optimized detailed outline
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:

Review weak dimension(s) from report
Implement specific recommendations
Re-evaluate chapter
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:

Run cross-chapter coherence check (Step 4.4)
Identify inconsistent terminology or voice
Revise to match dominant style
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:

Identify weak dimensions from final report
Focus on dimensions scoring <7/10
Implement high-priority revisions systematically
Re-evaluate after revisions

Common causes: Insufficient literature integration, unclear contribution, poor coherence

Issue 4: Completeness Checklist Incomplete

Symptom: Missing required elements

Solution:

Review which category has incomplete items
Add missing elements (e.g., missing objections section, incomplete references)
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:

Systematic Writing (Phase 4): Chapter-by-chapter execution with 5-dimension quality checks after each (≥16/20 threshold)
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.