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
```
. Determines style file and formatting.
ANONYMOUS = true — If true, use anonymous author block. Set
```
false
```
for camera-ready.
MAX_PAGES = 9 — Main body page limit. Counts from first page to end of Conclusion section. References and appendix are NOT counted.
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

PAPER_PLAN.md — outline with claims-evidence matrix, section plan, figure plan (from
```
/paper-plan
```
)
NARRATIVE_REPORT.md — the research narrative (primary source of content)
Generated figures — PDF/PNG files in
```
figures/
```
(from
```
/paper-figure
```
)
LaTeX includes —
```
figures/latex_includes.tex
```
(from
```
/paper-figure
```
)
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.

Templates

Venue-Specific Setup

The skill includes conference templates in

templates/

. Select based on TARGET_VENUE:

ICLR:

latex

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

NeurIPS:

latex

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

ICML:

latex

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

Project Structure

Generate this file structure:

paper/
├── main.tex                    # master file (includes sections)
├── iclr2026_conference.sty     # or neurips_2025.sty / icml2025.sty
├── 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

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

Create
```
paper/
```
directory
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
Generate
```
math_commands.tex
```
with paper-specific notation
Create section files matching PAPER_PLAN structure

Author block (anonymous mode):

latex

\author{Anonymous Authors}

Step 2: Generate math_commands.tex

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

latex

% 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:

Read the plan — what claims, evidence, citations belong here
Read NARRATIVE_REPORT.md — extract relevant content, findings, and quantitative results
Draft content — write complete LaTeX (not placeholders)
Insert figures/tables — use snippets from
```
figures/latex_includes.tex
```
Add citations — use
```
\citep{}
```
/
```
\citet{}
```
(all three venues use
```
natbib
```
)

Section-Specific Guidelines

§0 Abstract:

Must be self-contained (understandable without reading the paper)
Structure: problem → approach → key result → implication
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, ...")
List contributions as a numbered or bulleted list
End with a brief roadmap ("The rest of this paper is organized as...")
Include the main result figure if space allows
Target: 1.5 pages

§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.}
```
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
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.

Scan all
```
\citep{}
```
and
```
\citet{}
```
references in the drafted sections
Build a citation key list
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
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)

bash

# 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)

bash

# 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

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

python

import re
# 1. Grep all \citep{...} and \citet{...} from all .tex files
# 2. Extract unique keys (handle multi-cite like \citep{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):

Every BibTeX entry must have: author, title, year, venue/journal
Prefer published venue versions over arXiv preprints (if published)

Use consistent key format:

{firstauthor}{year}{keyword}

(e.g.,

ho2020denoising

)

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

Step 5: De-AI Polish (from kgraph57/paper-writer-skill)

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

Content patterns to fix:

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"

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?

    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:

Extract topic sentences — pull the first sentence of every paragraph
Read them in sequence — they should form a coherent narrative on their own
Check claim coverage — every claim from the Claims-Evidence Matrix must appear
Check evidence mapping — every experiment/figure must support a stated claim
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
```
\citep{}
```
/
```
\citet{}
```
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

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 — all three venues (ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML) use
```
natbib
```
(
```
\citep
```
/
```
\citet
```
)
Page limit = main body to Conclusion — references and appendix do NOT count
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

Writing Quality Reference

Principles from Research-Paper-Writing-Skills:

One message per paragraph — each paragraph makes exactly one point
Topic sentence first — the first sentence states the paragraph's message
Explicit transitions — connect paragraphs with logical connectors
Reverse outline test — extract topic sentences; they should form a coherent narrative

De-AI patterns from kgraph57/paper-writer-skill:

No AI watch words — delve, pivotal, landscape, tapestry, underscore
No significance inflation — groundbreaking, revolutionary, paradigm shift
No formulaic structures — vary sentence openings and transitions

Acknowledgements

Writing methodology adapted from Research-Paper-Writing-Skills (CCF award-winning methodology). Citation verification from claude-scholar and Imbad0202/academic-research-skills. De-AI polish from kgraph57/paper-writer-skill. Backup mechanism from baoyu-skills.

paper-write

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Paper Write: Section-by-Section LaTeX Generation

Constants

Inputs

Templates

Venue-Specific Setup

Project Structure

Workflow

Step 0: Backup and Clean

Step 1: Initialize Project

Step 2: Generate math_commands.tex

Step 3: Write Each Section

Section-Specific Guidelines

Step 4: Build Bibliography

Verified BibTeX Fetch (when DBLP_BIBTEX = true)

Step 5: De-AI Polish (from kgraph57/paper-writer-skill)

Step 6: Cross-Review with REVIEWER_MODEL

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

Step 8: Final Checks

Key Rules

Writing Quality Reference

Acknowledgements