Conference Writing Adapter

Adapt an existing research paper to the writing conventions, reviewer expectations, and paper archetypes of a target ML/AI conference. The goal is to make the paper easier for the right reviewers to understand, trust, and champion without inventing unsupported claims or new experimental results.

Use this skill for:

paper structure diagnosis before submission
conference-specific rewrite plans
abstract, introduction, method, experiment, limitation, and related-work rewrites
venue-aware figure/table story, visual style, and result presentation decisions
paragraph-level outlines for an existing draft
learning from accepted, oral, spotlight, best-paper, or highly discussed papers at the target venue
accumulating reusable knowledge about venue taste and successful paper patterns

Do not use this skill as a substitute for running experiments, proving claims, or checking final submission compliance. Pair it with

submit-paper

for final readiness checks and with experiment skills when the paper has evidence gaps. Use

figure-results-review

when the main issue is whether a figure/table's claim support, style, caption, or visual encoding is paper-ready.

Pair this skill with

research-project-memory

when rewriting changes paper claims, section structure, figure/table roles, writing risks, or experiment actions.

Skill Directory Layout

text

<installed-skill-dir>/
├── SKILL.md
└── references/
    ├── conference-profiles.md
    ├── exemplar-analysis.md
    ├── memory-model.md
    ├── paper-archetypes.md
    ├── quality-gates.md
    └── paragraph-protocol.md

Progressive Loading

Always read

references/paper-archetypes.md

and

references/paragraph-protocol.md

Read
```
references/conference-profiles.md
```
when the user names a target conference or asks to compare venues.
Read
```
references/exemplar-analysis.md
```
when the task involves learning from accepted, oral, spotlight, best-paper, or otherwise strong target-venue papers.
Read
```
references/quality-gates.md
```
before finalizing a rewrite plan or rewritten section.
Read
```
references/memory-model.md
```
whenever learning from accepted papers, saving venue knowledge, or reusing prior knowledge.
When target venue rules may affect writing or formatting, verify current official instructions from the venue website. Do not rely only on memory for page limits, checklist requirements, anonymity, supplementary rules, or ethics/impact requirements.

Core Principles

Optimize for reviewer cognition, not ornamental prose. A good paper makes the contribution, evidence, and limitations easy to evaluate.
Match the paper to an archetype before rewriting. A method paper, benchmark paper, theory paper, dataset paper, system paper, and empirical study need different narrative skeletons.
Learn from venue exemplars. For a target conference, inspect accepted/oral/spotlight/best-paper examples when available, then extract reusable writing patterns rather than copying text.
Keep every paragraph accountable. Each paragraph should have one reviewer-facing job: motivate, identify a gap, state an insight, define a method component, support a claim, preempt a concern, interpret evidence, or delimit scope.
Do not fabricate evidence. If the paper needs an experiment, ablation, theorem, user study, or analysis that does not exist, mark it as a writing blocker and suggest how to phrase the current limitation.
Preserve the user's scientific intent. Improve positioning, structure, and clarity without changing the underlying claim beyond available evidence.

Step 1 - Define the Adaptation Task

Identify:

target conference and year, if known
submission track, if relevant
current paper format: LaTeX source, PDF, Markdown draft, outline, or notes
desired output: diagnosis, rewrite plan, paragraph blueprint, rewritten section, full-paper pass, or venue knowledge note
paper stage: idea, early draft, full draft, rebuttal revision, camera-ready
whether internet access or user-provided exemplar papers are available

If the user only says a venue name and provides a draft, default to:

diagnose the paper archetype
compare it with target venue expectations
produce a section-level and paragraph-level rewrite plan
rewrite the abstract and introduction if the draft contains enough evidence

Step 2 - Gather Paper Evidence

Prefer primary draft files and notes over memory.

Look for:

main.tex

paper.tex

sections/*.tex

*.bib

README.md

docs/

notes/

title, abstract, introduction, contribution list
figures and tables, especially the main result figure
existing visual style choices: palette, markers, symbols, font sizes, line widths, figure sizing, and table conventions
method claim, assumptions, theorem statements, or system design
experiment setup, baselines, ablations, datasets, metrics, qualitative examples
limitations, broader impact, ethics, checklist, and appendix

Extract the paper into this working summary:

markdown

## Paper Snapshot
- Current title:
- Target venue:
- Claimed contribution:
- Core technical idea:
- Primary evidence:
- Strongest result:
- Most likely reviewer concern:
- Missing or weak evidence:
- Current structure:

If the draft is too incomplete to rewrite, produce a structural plan and a list of missing evidence instead of pretending the paper is ready.

Step 3 - Learn the Target Venue Taste

Read

references/conference-profiles.md

, then refine it with current evidence. When learning from multiple exemplar papers, read

references/exemplar-analysis.md

and produce a compact style matrix before recommending a rewrite strategy.

Sources to prefer:

official venue call for papers and author instructions
accepted/oral/spotlight/best-paper lists
OpenReview pages, using API/exported data/user-provided PDFs when the visible page is client-rendered
proceedings pages and official PDFs
reviewer guidelines, checklist requirements, and area descriptions

When using OpenReview:

The group page may load notes client-side and expose only "Loading" in static HTML.
If direct page content is unavailable, use OpenReview API endpoints, the venue's official accepted-paper export, search results, or user-provided links/PDFs.
Prioritize papers with status such as oral, spotlight, notable, award, or high-review visibility, but include archetype diversity rather than only the most famous papers.

Extract patterns from exemplars:

paper archetype
title style
abstract shape
introduction move sequence
where the core claim appears
how contributions are enumerated
method exposition density
experiment narrative order
figure/table role
visual style: palette, typography, symbol conventions, figure density, caption style, and table compactness
limitation handling
reviewer concern preemption

Do not copy phrasing from exemplar papers. Distill patterns.

Step 4 - Diagnose the Paper Archetype

Read

references/paper-archetypes.md

and classify the user's draft.

Use one primary archetype and optional secondary archetypes:

```
method
```
: new algorithm, architecture, objective, training recipe, inference procedure, or theoretical method
```
empirical-study
```
: systematic finding about models, data, scaling, evaluation, or failure modes
```
benchmark-dataset
```
: new dataset, task, benchmark, protocol, or evaluation suite
```
theory
```
: theorem-led paper with formal assumptions, guarantees, or impossibility results
```
systems
```
: infrastructure, serving, training, tool, compiler, data pipeline, or large-scale engineering contribution
```
analysis
```
: interpretability, diagnostic, causal, or mechanistic analysis
```
application
```
: strong domain result where novelty comes from ML adaptation plus evidence in a demanding setting

Then decide whether the current venue favors this archetype and what style variant fits best.

Step 5 - Build the Reviewer-Facing Narrative

Write a narrative diagnosis before rewriting:

markdown

## Venue Fit Diagnosis
- Target venue:
- Paper archetype:
- Best-fit style:
- Reviewer promise:
- Main tension:
- What must be obvious by the end of page 1:
- What must be proven by experiments/theory:
- Main figure/table role and visual style:
- What should move to appendix:
- Writing risks:

The "reviewer promise" is the sentence a reviewer should be able to say after reading the introduction:

This paper matters because [problem], and it deserves acceptance because [specific contribution] is supported by [specific evidence].

Step 6 - Produce a Section-Level Rewrite Plan

For a standard ML conference paper, plan:

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Background or Problem Setup
Method / Approach / Theory / Benchmark Design
Experiments / Evaluation
Analysis / Ablations / Discussion
Related Work
Limitations / Ethics / Broader Impact
Appendix / Supplementary

For each section, specify:

section job
target length or page budget
required claims
required evidence
paragraphs to include
material to cut or move
venue-specific cautions
figure/table role and visual style constraints when the section depends on visual evidence

If official page limits are relevant, verify current rules and state the source.

Step 7 - Produce a Paragraph-Level Blueprint

Read

references/paragraph-protocol.md

For every important paragraph, output:

markdown

### [Section] P[N]
- Function:
- Reader question answered:
- Claim:
- Evidence or support:
- Opening move:
- Closing move:
- Keep:
- Cut or move:
- Risk if weak:

Use this level of detail especially for the abstract, introduction, method overview, main experiment setup, and result interpretation.

Step 8 - Rewrite Text

When rewriting, preserve traceability:

Rewrite only sections that have enough evidence.
Keep claims no stronger than the paper's evidence.
Use explicit placeholders for missing facts, such as
```
[INSERT MAIN RESULT: metric, baseline, dataset]
```
.
Prefer concrete nouns and verbs over hype.
State contributions as claim plus evidence, not as vague novelty.
Add reviewer-facing transitions that explain why the next section exists.

For LaTeX projects, edit the smallest relevant file. Do not reorganize the entire source tree unless the user asks.

Step 9 - Run Quality Gates

Read

references/quality-gates.md

before finalizing a plan or rewritten section.

At minimum, check:

venue fit: the structure and tone match the target venue rather than generic ML writing
archetype fit: the chosen paper shape matches the actual contribution
claim-evidence alignment: every major claim has evidence or is marked as missing
paragraph function: each important paragraph has one reviewer-facing job
rebuttal readiness: obvious objections are preempted in the main text or flagged
reproducibility and assumptions: rules, assumptions, and appendix promises are explicit

If a gate fails, revise once before returning the result. If it still fails because evidence is missing, report the blocker instead of smoothing it over.

Step 10 - Update Writing Memory

Read

references/memory-model.md

When the task involved studying target-venue exemplars or the user explicitly wants knowledge to persist:

create or update project-local memory under
```
.agent/conference-writing/
```

add venue observations to

.agent/conference-writing/venues/<venue>.md

add exemplar notes to

.agent/conference-writing/exemplars/<venue>-<year>.md

add reusable decisions to

.agent/conference-writing/project-style.md

Memory entries must separate:

observed patterns from specific papers
inferences about venue taste
decisions for the current paper
unresolved questions

Do not store copyrighted paper text beyond short titles, bibliographic metadata, and brief paraphrased notes.

If the project uses

research-project-memory

, also update:

```
memory/claim-board.md
```
: revised claim wording, paper locations, and unsupported claims to cut or weaken
```
memory/evidence-board.md
```
: figure/table roles and evidence items cited by rewritten sections
```
memory/risk-board.md
```
: writing, positioning, venue-fit, and evidence-gap risks
```
memory/action-board.md
```
: missing experiments, citation checks, section rewrites, or figure updates exposed by writing
```
paper/.agent/paper-status.md
```
: section map, paragraph-level decisions, and stale figures/tables
```
paper/.agent/visual-style.md
```
or
```
.agent/conference-writing/project-style.md
```
: venue-facing figure style decisions, including palette, symbol, typography, and table conventions

Do not strengthen claims in memory beyond the evidence available in the paper.

Output Formats

Diagnosis Only

markdown

# Conference Writing Diagnosis
## Paper Snapshot
## Venue Fit Diagnosis
## Archetype Classification
## Main Reviewer Risks
## Recommended Rewrite Strategy

Rewrite Plan

markdown

# [Venue] Rewrite Plan
## Paper Snapshot
## Venue Pattern Summary
## Narrative Strategy
## Section-Level Plan
## Paragraph-Level Blueprint
## Evidence Gaps
## Appendix / Page-Budget Plan
## Memory Updates

Rewritten Section

markdown

# Rewritten [Section Name]
## Before/After Intent
## Draft Text
## Remaining Placeholders
## Why This Fits [Venue]

Final Sanity Check

Before finalizing:

the target conference and year are explicit
current venue rules were verified if page limits or mandatory sections matter
exemplar-derived observations are paraphrased and attributed at a high level
the user's paper archetype is stated
every paragraph in the blueprint has a clear reviewer-facing function
the quality gates have been run and any failing gate is reported
unsupported claims are marked as gaps
memory updates, if any, are written to project-local files

conference-writing-adapter

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Conference Writing Adapter

Skill Directory Layout

Progressive Loading

Core Principles

Step 1 - Define the Adaptation Task

Step 2 - Gather Paper Evidence

Step 3 - Learn the Target Venue Taste

Step 4 - Diagnose the Paper Archetype

Step 5 - Build the Reviewer-Facing Narrative

Step 6 - Produce a Section-Level Rewrite Plan

Step 7 - Produce a Paragraph-Level Blueprint

Step 8 - Rewrite Text

Step 9 - Run Quality Gates

Step 10 - Update Writing Memory

Output Formats

Diagnosis Only

Rewrite Plan

Rewritten Section

Final Sanity Check