AgentStack
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Academic Paper Composer

skill-lishix520-academic-paper-skills-composer · by lishix520

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…

No reviews yet
0 installs
0 views
view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-lishix520-academic-paper-skills-composer

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README — it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-lishix520-academic-paper-skills-composer)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
6mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming — see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps — measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Academic Paper Composer? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

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:

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

```markdown # 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:

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

  1. Create evaluation document:

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

  1. 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?
  1. Generate quality report:

``bash 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:

  1. Identify weak dimension(s): Which scored <3/4?
  1. 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
  1. Re-evaluate: Generate new quality report
  1. 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:

  1. Mark chapter complete in writing tracker
  2. Save chapter with quality report
  3. Note key concepts introduced (for coherence check later)
  4. 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:

  1. Introduction (write first)
  • Establishes thesis and roadmap
  • Use introduction guide from section_guides.md
  • Quality check: Abstract promises, literature coverage, clear contribution
  1. Main Body Chapters (in outline order)
  • Follow outline sequence
  • Quality check after each
  • Build on previous chapters
  1. Conclusion (write after main body)
  • Synthesizes findings
  • Addresses introduction promises
  • Use conclusion guide from section_guides.md
  1. Abstract (write last)
  • Summarizes complete paper
  • Use abstract guide from section_guides.md
  • Quality check: Standalone, accurate, compelling
  1. 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:

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

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

Scoring Process:

  1. Evaluate each dimension (1-10)
  2. Provide detailed notes for each
  3. Complete completeness checklist
  4. 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:

  1. Prioritize revisions:
  • HIGH priority: All issues affecting score or completeness
  • MEDIUM priority: Issues improving quality
  • LOW priority: Optional enhancements
  1. Implement systematically:
  • Address high-priority first
  • Document changes
  • Maintain style consistency
  1. Re-evaluate:
  • Generate new final report
  • Verify score ≥56/70
  • Check completeness 100%
  1. 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:

  1. 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
  1. Generate final outputs:
  • Formatted manuscript (PDF or LaTeX)
  • Abstract (separate file if needed)
  • Metadata file
  • Cover letter (if applicable)
  1. 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

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

Manuscript Files

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

Supporting Documentation

  1. Writing Progress Tracker
  • All chapters completed
  • Quality scores logged
  • Revision history
  1. 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 tem

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.