# Synthesize > Generate a research paper from investigation results, structured as a formal academic paper with definitions, theorems, lemmas, and proofs. Use when asked to synthesize, summarize, or write up research findings after investigation cycles. - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-sebastianelvis-reaper-synthesize` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [SebastianElvis](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/sebastianelvis) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Search](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/search) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** Apache-2.0 - **Upstream author:** [SebastianElvis](https://github.com/SebastianElvis) - **Source:** https://github.com/SebastianElvis/reaper/tree/main/skills/synthesize ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-sebastianelvis-reaper-synthesize ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Synthesize Generate a formal research paper from all investigation results. The output should read like a publishable academic paper — not a consulting report or investigation diary. ## Usage Invoke this skill by name; no arguments required. On slash-command hosts, prefix with `/` (e.g. `/synthesize`). ``` synthesize ``` ## Instructions ### 1. Re-read Workspace State (Efficiently) Do NOT rely on context window. Re-read workspace files, but **load selectively** to stay within context limits: **Always read:** - `reaper-workspace/notes/current-understanding.md` — the accumulated findings (primary source) - `reaper-workspace/notes/results.md` — the cycle-by-cycle record including batch summaries - `reaper-workspace/notes/problem-statement.md` — model assumptions and property definitions - `reaper-workspace/notes/ideas.md` — the ideas and their resolution status **Read for background (skim, don't deep-read):** - `reaper-workspace/notes/paper-summary.md` — focus on "Problem Statement" and "Red Flags" sections (skip if not present) - `reaper-workspace/notes/literature.md` — focus on "Landscape Summary" and "Key Prior Results" sections **Load investigation directories selectively:** - Read `notes/results.md` batch summaries first — these provide a condensed view of each batch's findings - Only read `investigations/*/analysis.md` for **keep hypotheses** (check the "Status" column in `notes/results.md`). Skip discard investigations entirely. Each `analysis.md` reflects the latest state of its hypothesis (edited inline on revisit). - If batch summaries are present and sufficient, you may skip individual `analysis.md` files for cycles already summarized - For investigations with formal proofs (`proof.md`), only read if the report needs to cite a specific proof step ### 2. Identify the Central Result If the investigation yielded multiple results, identify the **single most important one**. This is the main theorem of the paper. Ask: "If the reader remembers only one thing, what should it be?" ### 3. Write the Paper Write to `reaper-workspace/report.md` following the structure of a formal academic paper. The exact sections depend on the nature of the results (new construction, impossibility, proof gap, analysis), but the general template is: ```markdown # [Title: Descriptive, Not Generic] ## Abstract [Problem, approach, main result(s), significance. State the main theorem informally here. No more than 350 words — be concise. Split into multiple short paragraphs if needed for readability.] ## 1. Introduction ### 1.1 Problem and Motivation [What problem does this address? Why does it matter?] ### 1.2 Our Results [Informal statement of main results. Each contribution must be specific and refutable — a reader could disagree.] - **Theorem 1 (informal).** [Main result in plain language] - **Theorem 2 (informal).** [Secondary result, if any] NOT: "We analyze protocol X" or "We study the security of Y" ### 1.3 Related Work [How this relates to prior work. What was known before. What gap this fills.] ### 1.4 Paper Organization [Brief roadmap of remaining sections.] ## 2. Preliminaries ### 2.1 Notation [Notation conventions used throughout.] ### 2.2 Model [Formal system/threat model. Every dimension pinned down — consult the problem-statement.md model assumptions. State these as a definition if appropriate.] ### 2.3 Definitions [Formal definitions of properties, security notions, or concepts used in theorems. Use Definition environments.] **Definition 1** (Property Name). [Formal definition] ## 3. [Main Technical Content] This is the core of the paper. Structure depends on the type of result: **For new constructions or protocols:** - Section 3: Construction (protocol description) - Section 4: Security Analysis (theorems + proofs) - Section 5: Performance Analysis (complexity claims + proofs) **For proof gaps or attacks:** - Section 3: The Claimed Result (what the original paper claimed) - Section 4: The Gap/Attack (where and why it fails, with concrete example first) - Section 5: Implications and Fixes (what this means, minimal repairs if any) **For impossibility results:** - Section 3: The Impossibility (theorem statement) - Section 4: Proof of Impossibility - Section 5: Circumventing the Impossibility (what additional assumptions restore possibility) **For comparative analysis:** - Section 3: Framework (dimensions of comparison) - Section 4: Analysis of Each Approach (with formal claims) - Section 5: Comparison (theorems about relative strengths/weaknesses) Within each section, organize results as a logical chain of definitions, lemmas, theorems, and proofs: **Lemma 1.** [Precise statement with all assumptions explicit] *Proof.* [Step-by-step argument. Each step justified by definition, assumption, or prior lemma. End with ∎] **Theorem 1.** [Main result — precise mathematical statement] *Proof.* [May reference lemmas. Proof technique stated. Complete argument.] For counterexamples and attacks, use a concrete execution trace: **Claim 1.** [The property that fails] *Counterexample.* Consider n = [specific value], with adversary strategy... [Concrete execution trace showing the violation.] ∎ ## 4. Discussion [Implications, limitations, comparison to prior understanding. What assumptions could be relaxed or strengthened.] ## 5. Open Questions [Specific, actionable open problems — not "more work is needed." State each as a concrete question or conjecture.] **Conjecture 1.** [Precise statement of what you believe but did not prove] ## References [Papers cited during the investigation, formatted consistently. For each paper, include the **publication venue** (e.g., CRYPTO 2023, S&P 2024, J. Cryptology Vol 36) — not just an arXiv or ePrint ID. The venue should already be resolved in `notes/literature.md`'s `Venue` column from the `/review-literature` step; copy it through. For papers without a known venue, label as `(preprint)` and include the archive URL. Also attach a link to the PDF (arXiv, IACR ePrint, DOI, or publisher URL). Example formats: - Author, A., Author, B. *Title.* CRYPTO 2023, pp. XXX–YYY. [arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX](https://arxiv.org/abs/XXXX.XXXXX) - Author, C. *Title.* (preprint) IACR ePrint 2024/1234. [ePrint](https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/1234)] ## Appendix A: Investigation Log [Summary table from notes/results.md — the full cycle-by-cycle record for reproducibility.] ``` ### 4. Writing Principles **Structure of a formal paper, not a report:** - Every claim is backed by a definition, theorem, lemma, or proof — not just prose assertions - Concrete examples (execution traces, adversary strategies) appear *before* general theorems, motivating the formal result - The logical chain must be self-contained: a reader should be able to verify each proof step from the definitions and assumptions stated in the paper **Peyton Jones principles still apply:** - **One "ping"**: the paper has one clear main theorem stated upfront in the abstract and introduction - **Every claim is refutable**: if a sentence could appear in any paper about any topic, it's too vague — cut it or formalize it - **Problem → why it matters → what we found → evidence → comparison** — NOT a chronological diary of the investigation **Formal rigor:** - Every theorem/lemma states its assumptions explicitly - Proofs cite the proof technique used (reduction, simulation, induction, game-hopping, etc.) - Distinguish between what is proven and what is conjectured — label conjectures clearly - If a proof has gaps (e.g., a step that relies on intuition), state this honestly as a remark ### Confidence Handling Preserve confidence levels from `notes/results.md` exactly as logged — do not upgrade. The investigate skill defaults one level lower than instinct; synthesize must not undo that calibration. Map to paper constructs: **high** → theorems with full proofs, **medium** → propositions with explicit gap statements, **low** → clearly labeled conjectures. ### Failure Recovery If `current-understanding.md` is empty or missing, reconstruct from `results.md` batch summaries and `investigations/*/analysis.md` before writing. If both are empty, return an error — there is nothing to synthesize. ### Quality Criteria - Main result is stated as a formal theorem in the introduction (informal) and body (formal) - Every non-trivial claim has a corresponding theorem/lemma with proof - Definitions are precise — no informal "safety" or "liveness" without formal predicate - Counterexamples include concrete execution traces, not just "this can fail" - The paper is self-contained — a reader unfamiliar with the investigation can follow the argument - No chronological narration ("first we tried X, then we tried Y") — present the clean logical chain - Open questions are stated as conjectures or precise problems, not vague future work - Every entry in the References section names a real publication venue or is explicitly labeled `(preprint)` — never just an arXiv/ePrint ID where a venue is expected ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [SebastianElvis](https://github.com/SebastianElvis) - **Source:** [SebastianElvis/reaper](https://github.com/SebastianElvis/reaper) - **License:** Apache-2.0 Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-sebastianelvis-reaper-synthesize - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/sebastianelvis - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.