Module: Section Writing

Trigger: section writing, rewrite introduction, draft abstract, method narrative, related-work rewrite, experiment narrative, conclusion polish, paragraph roles, claim-evidence self-review

Purpose: Plan or rewrite one existing English paper section while preserving LaTeX syntax and separating prose proposals from source diagnostics.

This is an LLM-driven workflow. Do not run a script unless the user also asks for a diagnostic module such as logic, literature, experiment, or abstract.

When To Use

Use this module when the user asks to:

• draft, rewrite, or reviewer-polish Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Method, Experiments, Discussion, or Conclusion;
• design paragraph roles or a compact section outline;
• turn diagnostic findings into a rewrite blueprint;
• check whether major claims are supported by visible evidence.

Keep existing diagnostic modules for source checks:

• abstract: five-element abstract diagnosis and word count.
• logic: coherence, funnel, motivation-thread, and cross-section closure checks.
• literature: Related Work enumeration, comparison, and gap diagnosis.
• experiment: result, discussion, baseline, ablation, significance, and conclusion checks.

Progressive Loading

Read only the active section guide plus optional flow/self-review support:

Target	Read
Abstract	references/writing/section-writing/abstract.md
Introduction	references/writing/section-writing/introduction.md
Related Work	references/writing/section-writing/related-work.md
Method	references/writing/section-writing/method.md
Experiments or Discussion	references/writing/section-writing/experiments.md
Conclusion	references/writing/section-writing/conclusion.md
Paragraph flow question	references/writing/section-writing/flow.md
Reviewer-facing claim check	references/writing/section-writing/self-review.md

Use references/writing/section-writing/index.md only when choosing among these files.

Workflow

1. Identify the target section and current user intent: diagnosis, rewrite blueprint, paragraph-level prose, or self-review.
2. Load only the relevant section guide. Add flow.md when the user asks about clarity/coherence, and self-review.md when claims or reviewer risk matter.
3. Build a compact outline before proposing prose.
4. Assign paragraph roles before rewriting: opening, challenge, prior-work limitation, method, technical advantage, evidence, limitation, implication, or closure.
5. Preserve LaTeX anchors verbatim by default: \cite{}, \ref{}, \label{}, math, custom macros, table/figure anchors, and venue commands.
6. Emit a claim-evidence map for major claims. If evidence is missing, mark it as missing instead of inventing a citation, metric, baseline, or result.

Output Contract

For section-writing tasks, return:

1. Section objective: one sentence naming the target reader effect.
2. Compact outline: 3-7 bullets or a paragraph-role table.
3. Rewrite blueprint or prose proposal:
   • Use blueprint when the user asks for planning or when evidence is thin.
   • Use revised prose only when the user explicitly asks for wording.
4. Claim-evidence map:
   • Claim: ... | Evidence: ... | Status: supported/needs evidence/unsupported
5. Self-review checklist:
   • clarity, paragraph flow, terminology consistency, unsupported claims, missing experiments/evidence, and LaTeX preservation.

Hard Boundaries

• Do not fabricate citations, metrics, baselines, ablations, p-values, datasets, or conclusions.
• Do not change citation keys, labels, refs, math, macros, or template commands unless explicitly asked.
• Do not make a weakly supported claim sound stronger than the visible evidence.
• Do not overwrite script findings with prose enthusiasm. Keep diagnosis and proposed prose separate.