Paper Positioning Planner

Decide what the paper is selling, to whom, against which closest work, and with what evidence.

Use this skill when:

a project has enough idea/literature/evidence to ask what the paper should be
results are mixed and the contribution type may need to change
a draft feels unfocused or overclaims beyond evidence
figure review or reviewer simulation suggests the paper story is wrong
the user needs a primary claim, secondary claims, title/abstract direction, intro thesis, or related-work boundary
the paper may be a method paper, theory-guided method, empirical analysis, benchmark, diagnostic paper, systems paper, or negative/limitation paper
the user is deciding between target audiences or venues before polishing the text

Do not use this skill as a paragraph-level writing adapter. Use

conference-writing-adapter

after the positioning decision is clear.

Pair this skill with:

```
research-idea-validator
```
when the whole project may need pursue/revise/park/kill
```
literature-review-sprint
```
when closest work or community framing is unclear
```
algorithm-design-planner
```
when the chosen position changes the method specification
```
baseline-selection-audit
```
when the position depends on whether comparisons are reviewer-proof
```
figure-results-review
```
when visual evidence changes claim scope
```
paper-evidence-board
```
when positioning decisions must update claim/evidence/risk/action links
```
paper-reviewer-simulator
```
after positioning to stress-test the selected story
```
conference-writing-adapter
```
after positioning to rewrite sections for the target venue
```
research-project-memory
```
when positioning decisions should persist across sessions

Skill Directory Layout

text

<installed-skill-dir>/
├── SKILL.md
└── references/
    ├── audience-venue-fit.md
    ├── contribution-claim-map.md
    ├── decision-rules.md
    ├── memory-writeback.md
    ├── narrative-architecture.md
    ├── positioning-taxonomy.md
    └── report-template.md

Progressive Loading

Always read

references/positioning-taxonomy.md

references/contribution-claim-map.md

, and

references/decision-rules.md

Read
```
references/audience-venue-fit.md
```
when target venue, audience, or community framing matters.
Read
```
references/narrative-architecture.md
```
when producing title, abstract, intro, related-work, or main-figure direction.
Read
```
references/report-template.md
```
before writing the final positioning report.
Read
```
references/memory-writeback.md
```
when the project has
```
memory/
```
, component
```
.agent/
```
folders, or the user asks for persistent memory.
If the position depends on current venue expectations or recent accepted papers, verify with current sources, OpenReview, proceedings, or user-provided exemplars.

Core Principles

Positioning is a decision, not a list of possible stories.
The primary contribution must be supported by the strongest evidence, not by the user's favorite idea.
A smaller true claim is stronger than a broad brittle claim.
Secondary contributions should reinforce the primary story, not compete with it.
Closest work defines the novelty boundary and the reviewer attack surface.
The title, abstract, intro thesis, main figure, and result table should all sell the same core story.
Claims to avoid are as important as claims to emphasize.
A positioning decision should route concrete changes to writing, experiments, figures, or method design.

Step 1 - Recover Project State

Collect:

one-sentence project idea or current paper thesis
target venue or audience, if known
current paper draft, outline, abstract, title, figures, or result tables
literature map and closest-work risks
baseline audit or missing-comparison risks
figure/results review outcomes
reviewer simulation or real review concerns
available evidence and unsupported claims

project memory IDs such as

CLM-###

EVD-###

RSK-###

ACT-###

FIG-###

, or

TAB-###

Write the current story as:

text

This paper sells [primary contribution] to [audience] by showing [evidence] against [closest work], while avoiding the claim that [unsupported overclaim].

If the sentence cannot be written, the likely decision is

revise-positioning

Step 2 - Choose Paper Archetype

Read

references/positioning-taxonomy.md

Choose one primary archetype:

method paper
theory-guided method
empirical analysis
benchmark or dataset
systems or tooling
application paper
diagnostic or mechanistic study
negative result or limitation paper
position or perspective paper
hybrid paper

State why other plausible archetypes are weaker. Do not let the paper be a vague hybrid unless the evidence truly supports two linked contributions.

Step 3 - Map Contributions to Evidence

Read

references/contribution-claim-map.md

Create:

primary contribution
secondary contributions
claims to keep
claims to narrow
claims to cut
evidence required for each claim
evidence currently available
closest-work distinction
reviewer risk if the claim stays

Every primary claim must have at least one strong evidence route. If no route exists, revise the paper archetype or route to more experiments.

Step 4 - Decide Audience and Venue Fit

Read

references/audience-venue-fit.md

when relevant.

Decide:

who should care first: method researchers, theorists, benchmark users, systems builders, application researchers, or empirical analysts
which community's standards define novelty and evidence
whether the target venue is compatible with the strongest story
what the paper should not try to satisfy
what related-work boundary is needed to prevent reviewer confusion

If the evidence fits a different audience better than the user's target venue, say so directly and give the least disruptive repositioning.

Step 5 - Select the Strategic Position

Read

references/decision-rules.md

Choose exactly one:

```
lock-position
```
: story is coherent; proceed to writing adaptation
```
revise-positioning
```
: core contribution remains, but title/abstract/claims/figures must shift
```
narrow-claim
```
: evidence supports a smaller paper than the current draft claims
```
change-archetype
```
: paper type should change, such as method to empirical analysis or diagnostic study
```
need-evidence
```
: positioning depends on missing experiment, baseline, figure, theorem, or literature check
```
park-paper
```
: current evidence does not support a viable paper story yet

Do not choose

lock-position

if closest-work, baseline, or figure evidence risks remain fatal.

Step 6 - Build Narrative Architecture

Read

references/narrative-architecture.md

Produce:

candidate title direction
one-sentence thesis
abstract skeleton
intro paragraph roles
main figure or main table role
result-section ordering
related-work boundary
limitations to state proactively
claims to avoid

This should be strategic and section-level. Use

conference-writing-adapter

later for paragraph-level venue writing.

Step 7 - Route Changes

Route every unresolved issue:

```
conference-writing-adapter
```
: position is clear and text needs venue-specific rewriting
```
paper-evidence-board
```
: claims/evidence/figures/risks must be synchronized
```
figure-results-review
```
: main figure/table does not support the selected story
```
baseline-selection-audit
```
: selected story needs stronger comparison defense
```
experiment-design-planner
```
: missing evidence must be planned
```
result-diagnosis
```
: negative or mixed results threaten the position
```
literature-review-sprint
```
: closest-work boundary remains unclear
```
algorithm-design-planner
```
: method needs to change to fit the selected claim

Step 8 - Write the Positioning Report

Read

references/report-template.md

If saving to a project and no path is given, use:

text

docs/paper/positioning_plan_YYYY-MM-DD_<short-name>.md

The report must include:

current story diagnosis
selected paper archetype
positioning decision
primary and secondary contributions
claim/evidence map
closest-work and audience boundary
narrative architecture
claims to avoid
routed actions and next skills
memory update section

Step 9 - Write Back to Project Memory

Read

references/memory-writeback.md

when memory exists.

Update the smallest useful set of entries:

```
memory/decision-log.md
```
: selected paper position, archetype, target audience, and revisit triggers
```
memory/claim-board.md
```
: claims kept, narrowed, revised, cut, or blocked
```
memory/evidence-board.md
```
: evidence required by the selected story
```
memory/risk-board.md
```
: positioning, closest-work, overclaim, audience, and evidence risks
```
memory/action-board.md
```
: writing, figure, experiment, baseline, or literature actions
```
paper/.agent/
```
: title/abstract/main-figure/section positioning notes

Use certainty labels:

```
verified
```
for evidence checked against results, draft text, or sources
```
user-stated
```
for user goals and constraints
```
inferred
```
for strategic judgments and reviewer-risk predictions
```
unverified
```
for positions depending on unchecked current literature or missing results

Final Sanity Check

Before finalizing:

one primary story is selected
paper archetype is explicit
audience and closest-work boundary are clear
every primary claim has evidence or a routed action
unsupported claims are named and removed/narrowed
title/abstract/main-figure direction match the same story
next skill is unambiguous
project memory is updated when present

paper-positioning-planner

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Paper Positioning Planner

Skill Directory Layout

Progressive Loading

Core Principles

Step 1 - Recover Project State

Step 2 - Choose Paper Archetype

Step 3 - Map Contributions to Evidence

Step 4 - Decide Audience and Venue Fit

Step 5 - Select the Strategic Position

Step 6 - Build Narrative Architecture

Step 7 - Route Changes

Step 8 - Write the Positioning Report

Step 9 - Write Back to Project Memory

Final Sanity Check