Paper Write: Section-by-Section LaTeX Generation

Draft a LaTeX paper based on: $ARGUMENTS

Constants

• REVIEWER_MODEL =

  gpt-5.4

  — Model used via Codex MCP for section review. Must be an OpenAI model.
• TARGET_VENUE =

  ICLR

  — Default venue. Supported:

  ICLR

  ,

  NeurIPS

  ,

  ICML

  ,

  CVPR

  (also ICCV/ECCV),

  ACL

  (also EMNLP/NAACL),

  AAAI

  ,

  ACM

  (ACM MM, SIGIR, KDD, CHI, etc.),

  IEEE_JOURNAL

  (IEEE Transactions / Letters, e.g., T-PAMI, JSAC, TWC, TCOM, TSP, TIP),

  IEEE_CONF

  (IEEE conferences, e.g., ICC, GLOBECOM, INFOCOM, ICASSP). Determines style file and formatting.
• ANONYMOUS = true — If true, use anonymous author block. Set

  false

  for camera-ready. Note: most IEEE venues do NOT use anonymous submission — set

  false

  for IEEE.
• MAX_PAGES = 9 — Main body page limit. For ML conferences: counts from first page to end of Conclusion section, references and appendix NOT counted. For IEEE venues: references ARE counted toward the page limit. Typical limits: IEEE journal = no strict limit (but 12-14 pages typical for Transactions, 4-5 for Letters), IEEE conference = 5-8 pages including references.
• DBLP_BIBTEX = true — Fetch real BibTeX from DBLP/CrossRef instead of LLM-generated entries. Eliminates hallucinated citations. Zero install required. Set

  false

  to use legacy behavior (LLM search +

  [VERIFY]

  markers).

Inputs

1. PAPER_PLAN.md — outline with claims-evidence matrix, section plan, figure plan (from

   /paper-plan

   )
2. NARRATIVE_REPORT.md — the research narrative (primary source of content)
3. Generated figures — PDF/PNG files in

   figures/

   (from

   /paper-figure

   )
4. LaTeX includes —

   figures/latex_includes.tex

   (from

   /paper-figure

   )
5. Bibliography — existing

   .bib

   file, or will create one

If no PAPER_PLAN.md exists, ask the user to run

/paper-plan

first or provide a brief outline.

Orchestra-Guided Writing Overlay

Keep the existing

insleep

workflow, file layout, and defaults. Use the shared references below only when they improve writing quality:

• Read

  ../shared-references/writing-principles.md

  before drafting the Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, or when prose feels generic.
• Read

  ../shared-references/venue-checklists.md

  during the final write-up and submission-readiness pass.
• Read

  ../shared-references/citation-discipline.md

  only when the built-in DBLP/CrossRef workflow is insufficient.

These references are support material, not extra workflow phases.

Templates

Venue-Specific Setup

The skill includes conference templates in

templates/

. Select based on TARGET_VENUE:

ICLR:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{iclr2026_conference,times}
% \iclrfinalcopy  % Uncomment for camera-ready

NeurIPS:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[preprint]{neurips_2025}
% \usepackage[final]{neurips_2025}  % Camera-ready

ICML:

\documentclass[accepted]{icml2025}
% Use [accepted] for camera-ready

IEEE Journal (Transactions, Letters):

\documentclass[journal]{IEEEtran}
\usepackage{cite}  % IEEE uses \cite{}, NOT natbib
% Author block uses \author{Name~\IEEEmembership{Member,~IEEE}}

IEEE Conference (ICC, GLOBECOM, INFOCOM, ICASSP, etc.):

\documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
\usepackage{cite}  % IEEE uses \cite{}, NOT natbib
% Author block uses \IEEEauthorblockN / \IEEEauthorblockA

Project Structure

Generate this file structure:

paper/
├── main.tex                    # master file (includes sections)
├── iclr2026_conference.sty     # or neurips_2025.sty / icml2025.sty / IEEEtran.cls + IEEEtran.bst
├── math_commands.tex           # shared math macros
├── references.bib              # bibliography (filtered — only cited entries)
├── sections/
│   ├── 0_abstract.tex
│   ├── 1_introduction.tex
│   ├── 2_related_work.tex
│   ├── 3_method.tex            # or preliminaries, setup, etc.
│   ├── 4_experiments.tex
│   ├── 5_conclusion.tex
│   └── A_appendix.tex          # proof details, extra experiments
└── figures/                    # symlink or copy from project figures/

Section files are FLEXIBLE: If the paper plan has 6-8 sections, create corresponding files (e.g.,

4_theory.tex

,

5_experiments.tex

,

6_analysis.tex

,

7_conclusion.tex

).

Workflow

Step 0: Backup and Clean

If

paper/

already exists, back up to

paper-backup-{timestamp}/

before overwriting. Never silently destroy existing work.

CRITICAL: Clean stale files. When changing section structure (e.g., 5 sections → 7 sections), delete section files that are no longer referenced by

main.tex

. Stale files (e.g., old

5_conclusion.tex

left behind when conclusion moved to

7_conclusion.tex

) cause confusion and waste space.

Step 1: Initialize Project

1. Create

   paper/

   directory
2. Copy venue template from

   templates/

   — the template already includes:
   • All standard packages (amsmath, hyperref, cleveref, booktabs, etc.)
   • Theorem environments with

     \crefname{assumption}

     fix
   • Anonymous author block
3. Generate

   math_commands.tex

   with paper-specific notation
4. Create section files matching PAPER_PLAN structure

Author block (anonymous mode):

\author{Anonymous Authors}

Step 2: Generate math_commands.tex

Create shared math macros based on the paper's notation:

% math_commands.tex — shared notation
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
% Add paper-specific notation here

Step 3: Write Each Section

Process sections in order. For each section:

1. Read the plan — what claims, evidence, citations belong here
2. Read NARRATIVE_REPORT.md — extract relevant content, findings, and quantitative results
3. Draft content — write complete LaTeX (not placeholders)
4. Insert figures/tables — use snippets from

   figures/latex_includes.tex

5. Add citations — for ML conferences (ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR/ACL/AAAI): use

   \citep{}

   /

   \citet{}

   (natbib). For IEEE venues: use

   \cite{}

   (numeric style via

   cite

   package). Never mix natbib and cite commands.

Before drafting the front matter, re-read the one-sentence contribution from

PAPER_PLAN.md

. The Abstract and Introduction should make that takeaway obvious before the reader reaches the full method.

Section-Specific Guidelines

§0 Abstract:

• Use the 5-part flow from

  ../shared-references/writing-principles.md

  : what, why hard, how, evidence, strongest result
• Must be self-contained (understandable without reading the paper)
• Start with the paper's specific contribution, not generic field-level background
• Include one concrete quantitative result
• 150-250 words (check venue limit)
• No citations, no undefined acronyms
• No

  \begin{abstract}

  — that's in main.tex

§1 Introduction:

• Open with a compelling hook (1-2 sentences, problem motivation)
• State the gap clearly ("However, ...")
• Give a brief approach overview before the reader gets lost in details
• List 2-4 specific, falsifiable contributions as a numbered or bulleted list
• Preview the strongest result early instead of saving it for the experiments section
• End with a brief roadmap ("The rest of this paper is organized as...")
• Include the main result figure if space allows
• Target: 1-1.5 pages
• Methods should begin by page 2-3 at the latest

§2 Related Work:

• MINIMUM 1 full page (3-4 substantive paragraphs). Short related work sections are a common reviewer complaint.
• Organize by category using

  \paragraph{Category Name.}

• Organize methodologically, by assumption class, or by research question; do not write paper-by-paper mini-summaries
• Each category: 1 paragraph summarizing the line of work + 1-2 sentences positioning this paper
• Do NOT just list papers — synthesize and compare
• End each paragraph with how this paper relates/differs

§3 Method / Preliminaries / Setup:

• Define notation early (reference math_commands.tex)
• Use

  \begin{definition}

  ,

  \begin{theorem}

  environments for formal statements
• For theory papers: include proof sketches of key results in main body, full proofs in appendix
• For theory papers: include a comparison table of prior bounds vs. this paper
• Include algorithm pseudocode if applicable (

  algorithm2e

  or

  algorithmic

  )
• Target: 1.5-2 pages

§4 Experiments:

• Start with experimental setup (datasets, baselines, metrics, implementation details)
• Main results table/figure first
• Then ablations and analysis
• Every claim from the introduction must have supporting evidence here
• For each major experiment, make explicit what claim it supports and what the reader should notice
• Target: 2.5-3 pages

§5 Conclusion:

• Summarize contributions (NOT copy-paste from intro — rephrase)
• Limitations (be honest — reviewers appreciate this)
• Future work (1-2 concrete directions)
• Ethics statement and reproducibility statement (if venue requires)
• Target: 0.5 pages

Appendix:

• Proof details (full proofs of main-body theorems)
• Additional experiments, ablations
• Implementation details, hyperparameter tables
• Additional visualizations

Step 4: Build Bibliography

CRITICAL: Only include entries that are actually cited in the paper.

1. Scan all citation references in the drafted sections (

   \citep{}

   /

   \citet{}

   for ML conferences,

   \cite{}

   for IEEE venues)
2. Build a citation key list
3. For each citation key:
   • Check existing

     .bib

     files in the project/narrative docs
   • If not found and DBLP_BIBTEX = true, use the verified fetch chain below
   • If not found and DBLP_BIBTEX = false, search arXiv/Scholar for correct BibTeX
   • NEVER fabricate BibTeX entries — mark unknown ones with

     [VERIFY]

     comment
4. Write

   references.bib

   containing ONLY cited entries (no bloat)

Verified BibTeX Fetch (when DBLP_BIBTEX = true)

Three-step fallback chain — zero install, zero auth, all real BibTeX:

Step A: DBLP (best quality — full venue, pages, editors)

# 1. Search by title + first author
curl -s "https://dblp.org/search/publ/api?q=TITLE+AUTHOR&format=json&h=3"
# 2. Extract DBLP key from result (e.g., conf/nips/VaswaniSPUJGKP17)
# 3. Fetch real BibTeX
curl -s "https://dblp.org/rec/{key}.bib"

Step B: CrossRef DOI (fallback — works for arXiv preprints)

# If paper has a DOI or arXiv ID (arXiv DOI = 10.48550/arXiv.{id})
curl -sLH "Accept: application/x-bibtex" "https://doi.org/{doi}"

Step C: Mark

[VERIFY]

(last resort) If both DBLP and CrossRef return nothing, mark the entry with

% [VERIFY]

comment. Do NOT fabricate.

Why this matters: LLM-generated BibTeX frequently hallucinates venue names, page numbers, or even co-authors. DBLP and CrossRef return publisher-verified metadata. Upstream skills (

/research-lit

,

/novelty-check

) may mention papers from LLM memory — this fetch chain is the gate that prevents hallucinated citations from entering the final

.bib

.

If the DBLP/CrossRef flow is not enough, load

../shared-references/citation-discipline.md

for stricter fallback rules before adding placeholders.

Automated bib cleaning — use this Python pattern to extract only cited entries:

import re
# 1. Grep all \citep{...}, \citet{...}, and \cite{...} from all .tex files
# 2. Extract unique keys (handle multi-cite like \citep{a,b,c} or \cite{a,b,c})
# 3. Parse the full .bib file, keep only entries whose key is in the cited set
# 4. Write the filtered bib

This prevents bib bloat (e.g., 948 lines → 215 lines in testing).

Citation verification rules (from claude-scholar + Imbad0202):

1. Every BibTeX entry must have: author, title, year, venue/journal
2. Prefer published venue versions over arXiv preprints (if published)
3. Use consistent key format:

   {firstauthor}{year}{keyword}

   (e.g.,

   ho2020denoising

   )
4. Double-check year and venue for every entry
5. Remove duplicate entries (same paper with different keys)

Step 5: De-AI Polish and Clarity Pass

After drafting all sections, scan for common AI writing patterns and fix them:

First apply the sentence-level clarity rules from

../shared-references/writing-principles.md

:

• keep subject and verb close together,
• put familiar context first and new information later,
• place the most important information near the end of the sentence,
• let each paragraph do one job,
• use verbs for actions instead of nominalized nouns.

Then fix the common content patterns below:

• Significance inflation ("groundbreaking", "revolutionary" → use measured language)
• Formulaic transitions ("In this section, we..." → remove or vary)
• Generic conclusions ("This work opens exciting new avenues" → be specific)

Language patterns to fix (watch words):

• Replace: delve, pivotal, landscape, tapestry, underscore, noteworthy, intriguingly
• Remove filler: "It is worth noting that", "Importantly,", "Notably,"
• Avoid rule-of-three lists ("X, Y, and Z" appearing repeatedly)
• Don't start consecutive sentences with "This" or "We"
• Replace vague nouns with concrete ones when ambiguity is possible ("this result", "this ablation", "this theorem")

Step 6: Cross-Review with REVIEWER_MODEL

Send the complete draft to GPT-5.4 xhigh:

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-5.4
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    Review this [VENUE] paper draft (main body, excluding appendix).

    Focus on:
    1. Does each claim from the intro have supporting evidence?
    2. Is the writing clear, concise, and free of AI-isms?
    3. Any logical gaps or unclear explanations?
    4. Does it fit within [MAX_PAGES] pages (to end of Conclusion)?
    5. Is related work sufficiently comprehensive (≥1 page)?
    6. For theory papers: are proof sketches adequate?
    7. Are figures/tables clearly described and properly referenced?
    8. Would a skim reader understand the contribution from the title, abstract, introduction, and Figure 1?

    For each issue, specify: severity (CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR), location, and fix.

    [paste full draft text]

Apply CRITICAL and MAJOR fixes. Document MINOR issues for the user.

Step 7: Reverse Outline Test (from Research-Paper-Writing-Skills)

After drafting all sections:

1. Extract topic sentences — pull the first sentence of every paragraph
2. Read them in sequence — they should form a coherent narrative on their own
3. Check claim coverage — every claim from the Claims-Evidence Matrix must appear
4. Check evidence mapping — every experiment/figure must support a stated claim
5. Fix gaps — if a topic sentence doesn't advance the story, rewrite the paragraph

Step 8: Final Checks

Before declaring done:

• All

  \ref{}

  and

  \label{}

  match (no undefined references)
• All citation commands (

  \citep{}

  /

  \citet{}

  for ML conferences,

  \cite{}

  for IEEE) have corresponding BibTeX entries
• No author information in anonymous mode
• Figure/table numbering is correct
• Page count within MAX_PAGES (main body to Conclusion end)
• No TODO/FIXME/XXX markers left in the text
• No

  [VERIFY]

  markers left unchecked
• Abstract is self-contained (understandable without reading the paper)
• Title is specific and informative (not generic)
• Related work is ≥1 full page
• references.bib contains ONLY cited entries (no bloat)
• No stale section files — every .tex in

  sections/

  is

  \input

  ed by

  main.tex

• Section files match main.tex — file numbering and

  \input

  paths are consistent
• Venue-specific required sections/checklists satisfied (read

  ../shared-references/venue-checklists.md

  if needed)
• A skim reader can recover the main claim from the title, abstract, introduction, and Figure 1/captions

Key Rules

• Large file handling: If the Write tool fails due to file size, immediately retry using Bash (

  cat << 'EOF' > file

  ) to write in chunks. Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.
• Do NOT generate author names, emails, or affiliations — use anonymous block or placeholder
• Write complete sections, not outlines — the output should be compilable LaTeX
• One file per section — modular structure for easy editing
• Every claim must cite evidence — cross-reference the Claims-Evidence Matrix
• Compile-ready — the output should compile with

  latexmk

  without errors (modulo missing figures)
• No over-claiming — use hedging language ("suggests", "indicates") for weak evidence
• Venue style matters — ML conferences (ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML) use

  natbib

  (

  \citep

  /

  \citet

  ); IEEE venues use

  cite

  package (

  \cite{}

  , numeric). Never mix.
• Page limit rules differ by venue — ML conferences: main body to Conclusion, references/appendix NOT counted. IEEE: references ARE counted toward the page limit.
• Clean bib — references.bib must only contain entries that are actually

  \cite

  d
• Section count is flexible — match PAPER_PLAN structure, don't force into 5 sections
• Backup before overwrite — never destroy existing

  paper/

  directory without backing up
• Front-load the contribution — do not hide the payoff until the experiments or appendix

Writing Quality Reference

• ../shared-references/writing-principles.md

  — story framing, abstract/introduction patterns, sentence-level clarity, reviewer reading order

• ../shared-references/venue-checklists.md

  — ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/IEEE submission requirements to check before declaring done

• ../shared-references/citation-discipline.md

  — stricter fallback for ambiguous citations

Keep using the reverse-outline test and anti-inflation polish from the main workflow above; the shared references are there to improve quality without adding a new phase.

Acknowledgements

Writing methodology adapted from Research-Paper-Writing-Skills (CCF award-winning methodology). Citation verification from claude-scholar and Imbad0202/academic-research-skills. This hybrid pack's writing-guidance overlay is adapted from Orchestra Research's paper-writing materials.