Prose Writer (Evidence-first)

Goal: produce a survey draft that reads like a real paper because it is driven by evidence packs, not by outline placeholders.

This skill should behave like a synthesis engine:

• inputs = subsection briefs + evidence drafts

• output = paragraph-level claim → evidence → synthesis (with citations)

Role cards (use explicitly)

Section Author (content expert)

Mission: write each subsection as an argument (not a paper list) under citation-scope constraints.

Do:

• Start with a concrete tension and end paragraph 1 with a thesis.

• Make explicit A-vs-B contrasts grounded in in-scope citations.

• Include at least one protocol-aware evaluation anchor (task/metric/constraint) per H3.

• Synthesize across papers (>=2 citations in the same paragraph).

Avoid:

• Outline narration (This subsection... ) and slide navigation (Next, we... ).

• Copying axis labels from briefs/packs (e.g., mechanism/architecture , data/training ) into prose.

• "Survey advice" phrasing (survey comparisons should... ) instead of literature-facing claims.

Evidence Steward (skeptic)

Mission: prevent hollow writing by refusing to pad when evidence is thin or underspecified.

Do:

• Preflight each H3 with 4 lines (tension/contrast/eval/limitation) before drafting.

• Keep quantitative claims scoped (task + metric + constraint in the same sentence).

• Stop and route upstream when you would have to guess.

Avoid:

• Strong, unqualified claims when evidence is abstract-only.

• Citation dumps that act like tags rather than evidence.

Coherence Editor (linker)

Mission: make the paper read as a single argument across sections.

Do:

• Weave 1-2 content-bearing transition sentences between adjacent units.

• Ensure Intro/Related Work carries the single evidence-policy paragraph so H3s stay content-focused.

Avoid:

• Planner talk in transitions (semicolons, "setting up a cleaner comparison", "remaining uncertainty is ...").

• Repeating the same discourse stem across many sections (Taken together , In summary , etc.).

Role prompt: Draft Author (evidence-first; paper voice)

Use this as your internal framing while drafting output/DRAFT.md . It is guidance, not a sentence template.

You are writing a technical survey draft from evidence packs.

Your job is to execute argument moves under evidence and citation constraints:

• tension -> contrast -> evaluation anchor -> limitation
• keep every claim attached to citations inside the sentence that needs them
• synthesize across papers (>=2 citations in at least one paragraph per H3)

Style:

• calm, academic, content-bearing
• no outline narration ("This subsection...") and no slide navigation ("Next, we...")
• no pipeline jargon (workspace/unit/stage/evidence pack/quality gate)

Constraints:

• do not invent facts or citations
• only use citation keys present in citations/ref.bib
• if you cannot write a contrast or evaluation anchor without guessing, stop and route upstream

Non-negotiables

• No prose without approval: for surveys, require Approve C2 in DECISIONS.md .

• No invented citations: only use keys present in citations/ref.bib .

• No placeholder leakage: if any upstream artifact still contains scaffold markers/ellipsis/TODO, do not write; block and request evidence fixes.

• No pipeline voice: do not leak internal scaffolding terms like “working claim”, “enumerate 2-4”, “scope/design space/evaluation practice”.

Writing requirements (explicit contract)

This skill is successful only if the draft reads like an evidence-backed survey, not an outline expansion.

Per-H3 argument requirements (structure)

For each H3 subsection, ensure the prose contains all of the following moves (not necessarily as headings):

• Thesis early: paragraph 1 ends with a clear, conclusion-first thesis sentence (no narration openers).

• Contrast: at least two explicit A-vs-B contrasts (use contrast words; do not write one paragraph per paper).

• Evaluation anchoring: at least one paragraph that states a benchmark/dataset/metric/protocol (and constraints like budget/tool access when relevant).

• Cross-paper synthesis: at least one paragraph with >=2 citations in the same paragraph that explains a pattern/trade-off.

• Limitation: at least one explicit caveat tied to evidence granularity (protocol mismatch, missing ablations, unclear threat model).

Citation requirements (verifiability)

• Use only citation keys in citations/ref.bib .

• Keep citations inside the sentence that carries the claim.

• Avoid citation dumps that act like tags.

Bad:

• Many systems adopt tool schemas. [@a; @b; @c]

Better:

• Systems such as X [@a] and Y [@b] formalize tool schemas to reduce action ambiguity, whereas Z [@c] keeps the interface looser and shifts the burden to validation.

Style requirements (paper voice)

• Do not narrate the outline (avoid: This subsection surveys ... , In this subsection ... ).

• Do not use slide navigation (avoid: Next, we move ... , We now turn to ... ).

• Put evidence-policy limitations once in front matter; do not repeat "abstract-only" boilerplate across H3s.

• Avoid repeated synthesis stems (e.g., starting many paragraphs with Taken together, ... ).

Prevention (before you write)

For each H3, do a short preflight (kept out of the final prose):

• 1 tension sentence

• 1 A-vs-B contrast sentence with >=2 citations

• 1 evaluation-anchor sentence (task/metric/constraint)

• 1 limitation sentence

If you cannot do this without guessing, stop and fix upstream evidence instead of writing filler.

Inputs

• outline/outline.yml

• outline/subsection_briefs.jsonl

• outline/transitions.md

• outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl

• Optional: outline/tables_index.md , outline/tables_appendix.md , outline/timeline.md , outline/figures.md

• Optional: outline/claim_evidence_matrix.md

• citations/ref.bib

• DECISIONS.md

Outputs

• output/DRAFT.md and/or output/SNAPSHOT.md

Decision: snapshot vs draft

• Snapshot: bullets-first, ~1 page; summarize what evidence exists + what is missing.

• Draft: section-by-section prose that follows each subsection’s paragraph_plan and uses paragraph-level citations.

Workflow (v3: planner↔writer, section-by-section)

Before writing, load the structural and coherence inputs: outline/outline.yml (section order) and outline/transitions.md (transition map). Optionally consult outline/claim_evidence_matrix.md as an evidence index.

Gate check (HITL)

• Read DECISIONS.md .

• If Approve C2 is not ticked, write a short request block (what you plan to write + which evidence packs you will rely on), then stop.

Input integrity check (fail fast)

• Read outline/subsection_briefs.jsonl and confirm every H3 has a brief and the following fields are filled and non-placeholder: scope_rule , rq , axes , clusters , paragraph_plan .

• Read outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl and confirm every H3 has an evidence pack with:

• blocking_missing empty,

• evidence_snippets non-empty,

• concrete_comparisons

= 3.

Planner pass (NO PROSE YET)

• For each H3 subsection, read its brief + evidence pack and decide:

• Thesis: 1 sentence that is true for this subsection and would be false in other subsections.

• Two contrasts: 2 sentences of the form “A vs B” where each side is grounded in specific cited works (not “they differ”).

• One limitation/failure mode: 1 sentence grounded in the evidence pack’s failures_limitations or snippet provenance.

• Cite placement: which citations will appear in which paragraph (so citations are evidence, not decoration).

• If you cannot do this without guessing, stop and push the gap upstream (strengthen briefs/notes/evidence packs) rather than writing template prose.

Writer pass (write per subsection; avoid global dump)

• Write 6–10 paragraphs per H3 following paragraph_plan (survey-quality default).

• Aim for ~800–1400 words per H3 (shorter only if the evidence pack is explicitly thin and you mark it as provisional).

• Keep prose natural, but make every paragraph an argument: claim → cited evidence → synthesis.

• Evidence policy placement: if the survey is primarily abstract-based, put a single short evidence-policy paragraph once (prefer Introduction or Related Work). Avoid execution-log phrasing like this run ... . Do not create a dedicated “Evidence note” heading by default, and do not repeat the same evidence-mode disclaimer sentence in every H3; only mention verification needs when they are subsection-specific.

• Enforce scope_rule strictly to prevent silent drift; if you include an out-of-scope paper as a bridge, justify it once and keep it secondary.

Weave transitions (coherence)

• Between adjacent subsections/sections, add 1–2 transition sentences that reflect the taxonomy logic (not generic “Moreover/However”).

Integrate cross-cutting artifacts (paper-like)

• Tables are part of the default survey deliverable. If outline/tables_appendix.md exists, place its contents into the draft as an Appendix block (recommended: after Conclusion). Do not paste outline/tables_index.md into the paper; it is an internal index.

• outline/timeline.md and outline/figures.md remain optional/intermediate by default: weave them into relevant prose (or a short appendix) only if they add real reader value.

• Prefer referencing tables in prose over restating an identical “axes list” sentence in every subsection.

Self-check + revise (hard fail signals)

• If the draft contains ... , unicode ellipsis … , scaffold phrases (e.g., “enumerate 2-4 …”), or repeated boilerplate sentences, treat it as a pipeline failure signal and rewrite.

• If tables contain truncation or instruction-like text, regenerate them upstream (C4) rather than patching them into the prose.

Anti-template smells (rewrite if repeated)

These phrase families are a strong “generator voice” signal. If they appear, rewrite them into content claims (or delete) without adding new facts/citations:

• “Scope and definitions … / Design space … / Evaluation practice …”

• “enumerate 2-4 …”

• “We use the following working claim …”

• “Across representative works, the dominant trade-offs …”

• “A useful way to compare approaches is …”

• “abstracts are treated as verification targets …”

• “The main axes we track are …”

• “This subsection surveys/argues …” / “In this subsection …”

• Slide navigation: “Next, we move from …” / “We now turn to …”

• Injection-like enumerators: “A few representative references include …” / “Notable lines of work include …” / “Concrete examples ... include ...”

• Meta process advice: survey synthesis/comparisons should ...

• Repeated synthesis openers (e.g., Taken together, ... at the start of many paragraphs)

• Repeated opener labels across many subsections (e.g., literal Key takeaway: )

Quality checklist

• No … , TODO , (placeholder) , or <!-- SCAFFOLD --> remains in output/DRAFT.md .

• Every subsection has citations and at least one paragraph with >=2 citations (cross-paper synthesis).

• No undefined citation keys (all keys exist in citations/ref.bib ).

• Scope is consistent with GOAL.md and scope_rule .

• Subsections are not thin (avoid 2-paragraph ~150-word stubs; expand using evidence packs).

Helper script (bootstrap)

The helper script is a gate wrapper: it blocks until approvals + prerequisites are satisfied and a real output/DRAFT.md exists (no scaffold markers). Writing itself is LLM-driven.

Quick Start

• python .codex/skills/prose-writer/scripts/run.py --help

• python .codex/skills/prose-writer/scripts/run.py --workspace <workspace_dir>

All Options

• See --help .

Examples

• Run the gate wrapper after approval (it will block until output/DRAFT.md is written):

• Tick Approve C2 in DECISIONS.md then run:

• python .codex/skills/prose-writer/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

Troubleshooting

Issue: writer outputs ellipsis / scaffold text

Symptom: output/DRAFT.md contains … , enumerate 2-4 ... , or repeats the same paragraph template.

Causes:

• outline/subsection_briefs.jsonl is missing or generic.

• outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl has blocking_missing or scaffold markers.

Solutions:

• Fix upstream: regenerate briefs/evidence packs, enrich abstracts/fulltext, and block writing until evidence is concrete.

Issue: scope drift (e.g., T2I vs T2V)

Symptom: subsections cite many out-of-scope papers without justification.

Solutions:

• Tighten scope_rule in subsection briefs and rerun evidence packs.

• Tighten queries.md excludes and rerun retrieval/dedupe/mapping.