research-paper-writing
Use this skill when the problem is not just "write better prose", but "turn research work into a defensible paper." The focus is contribution framing, evidence ordering, experiment coverage, and reviewer-facing clarity.
When to use this skill
- Drafting or rewriting an abstract around concrete claims and measurable evidence
- Structuring an introduction so motivation, gap, method, and contributions land quickly
- Turning notes or code results into a method section with reproducible detail
- Designing experiment, ablation, and error-analysis sections
- Writing related work that positions the paper instead of listing references
- Tightening a rebuttal or reviewer response under strict word limits
Instructions
Step 1: Lock the paper contract
Before writing, define:
- the core problem in one sentence
- the single strongest contribution
- the minimum evidence required to defend that contribution
- the target venue and its format constraints
If any of those are fuzzy, fix them first. Weak framing leaks into every section.
Step 2: Write the abstract from claims, not chronology
Use this order:
- problem and stakes
- gap in existing work
- proposed method
- strongest quantitative results
- scope or implication
Keep numbers concrete. Replace vague phrases like "significant improvement" with metric + benchmark + margin.
Step 3: Build the introduction as a reviewer funnel
Structure the introduction in five moves:
- why the problem matters
- why existing approaches fall short
- what your method changes
- what the evidence shows
- bullet contributions
Contribution bullets should be specific and testable, not marketing copy.
Step 4: Make the method reproducible
The method section should answer:
- what inputs and outputs exist
- what modules or stages the system contains
- what training or optimization objective is used
- what implementation choices materially affect results
Use equations only where they clarify behavior. If a paragraph can be replaced by a precise algorithm box or table, do that.
Step 5: Treat experiments as the proof section
Cover at least:
- main benchmark results
- ablations for the claimed mechanism
- comparison to strong baselines
- qualitative or failure analysis when helpful
- efficiency or cost if the method claims practicality
Each subsection should map back to one contribution claim.
Step 6: Write rebuttals with evidence first
For each reviewer concern:
- restate the concern precisely
- answer directly in one sentence
- add concrete evidence
- say what will change in the camera-ready version, if applicable
Do not become defensive. Remove throat-clearing and persuasion language that is not backed by evidence.
Examples
Example 1: Abstract rewrite
Input:
- notes on a diffusion model paper
- benchmark table
- target venue: CVPR
Output:
- a 150-200 word abstract with problem, gap, method, results, and impact
Example 2: Experiment plan
Input:
- draft method section
- three claimed contributions
Output:
- experiment matrix listing datasets, baselines, ablations, metrics, and figure/table owners
Best practices
- Every major claim should have a matching figure, table, or ablation.
- Do not bury the best result in the middle of a paragraph.
- Use consistent terminology for modules, datasets, and metrics throughout the paper.
- Prefer short, information-dense sentences over long narrative transitions.
- If a result is mixed, state the boundary clearly instead of overselling.
References
- Peng Sida, research paper writing notes
- NeurIPS, ICLR, CVPR author guidelines