research-paper-writer
Guide for writing formal academic papers following IEEE and ACM standards
Best use case
research-paper-writer is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Guide for writing formal academic papers following IEEE and ACM standards
Teams using research-paper-writer should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/research-paper-writer/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How research-paper-writer Compares
| Feature / Agent | research-paper-writer | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Guide for writing formal academic papers following IEEE and ACM standards
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
Best AI Skills for ChatGPT
Find the best AI skills to adapt into ChatGPT workflows for research, writing, summarization, planning, and repeatable assistant tasks.
AI Agent for YouTube Script Writing
Find AI agent skills for YouTube script writing, video research, content outlining, and repeatable channel production workflows.
SKILL.md Source
# Research Paper Writer — IEEE/ACM Standards Guide
## Overview
This skill guides the creation of formal academic papers for computer science and engineering venues, with a focus on IEEE and ACM formatting standards. It covers manuscript structure, citation practices, figure/table conventions, and submission preparation. Applicable to conference papers (6-10 pages), journal articles (12-20 pages), and workshop papers (4-6 pages).
## Paper Structure
### IEEE Format (Two-Column)
```
Title
Authors (Name, Affiliation, Email)
Abstract (150-250 words)
Index Terms (4-6 keywords)
I. INTRODUCTION
II. RELATED WORK
III. METHODOLOGY / PROPOSED APPROACH
IV. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
VI. CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
```
### ACM Format (Two-Column, CCS Concepts)
```
Title
Authors (Name, Affiliation, Email, ORCID)
Abstract (150-250 words)
CCS Concepts (from ACM Computing Classification System)
Keywords (3-6 terms)
1 INTRODUCTION
2 BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
3 APPROACH / METHOD
4 EVALUATION
5 RESULTS
6 DISCUSSION
7 THREATS TO VALIDITY
8 CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
```
## Section Writing Guidelines
### Abstract
Write the abstract last. Follow the 4-sentence pattern:
1. **Context**: One sentence establishing the problem domain
2. **Problem**: One sentence stating the specific gap or challenge
3. **Approach**: One sentence describing your method/contribution
4. **Results**: One sentence summarizing key findings with numbers
```
Example (IEEE style, ~180 words):
"Large language models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in code
generation, yet their performance degrades significantly on domain-specific
APIs. This paper addresses the challenge of adapting LLMs to specialized
codebases without extensive fine-tuning. We propose RetrievalCoder, a
retrieval-augmented approach that indexes API documentation and retrieves
relevant context at inference time using semantic similarity. Experiments
on three enterprise codebases show that RetrievalCoder improves functional
correctness by 34.2% over the base model and 12.8% over few-shot prompting,
while reducing API hallucination rate from 47% to 8%."
```
### Introduction (1.5-2 pages)
Structure as an inverted triangle:
1. **Broad context** (1-2 paragraphs): Establish the research area
2. **Specific problem** (1 paragraph): Narrow to your exact problem
3. **Limitations of existing work** (1 paragraph): Why current solutions fall short
4. **Your contribution** (1 paragraph): What you do differently
5. **Contribution list** (bulleted): 3-4 concrete contributions
6. **Paper organization** (1 sentence): "The remainder of this paper is organized as..."
### Related Work (1-1.5 pages)
Organize by **theme**, not chronologically:
```markdown
## 2. Related Work
### 2.1 Retrieval-Augmented Generation
[Discuss RAG papers, position your work relative to them]
### 2.2 Code Generation with LLMs
[Discuss code LLM papers, explain what's different about your setting]
### 2.3 Domain-Specific Adaptation
[Discuss fine-tuning vs. prompting approaches]
```
Each paragraph should: (1) summarize the cited work, (2) state its limitation, (3) contrast with your approach.
### Methodology (2-3 pages)
- Start with a **system overview figure** (architecture diagram)
- Use **formal notation** introduced in a "Preliminaries" subsection
- Define each component with its own subsection
- Include **pseudocode** (Algorithm environment) for complex procedures
- Explain design choices with justification
### Experiments (2-3 pages)
Cover these elements systematically:
| Element | What to Include |
|---------|----------------|
| **Research Questions** | RQ1, RQ2, RQ3 — one per aspect you evaluate |
| **Datasets** | Name, size, source, preprocessing, train/test split |
| **Baselines** | Each baseline with citation and brief description |
| **Metrics** | Definition of each metric, why it's appropriate |
| **Implementation** | Hardware, software versions, hyperparameters |
| **Reproducibility** | Code/data availability statement |
### Results Tables
```latex
% IEEE style table
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Comparison with baselines on CodeBench.}
\label{tab:main_results}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
Method & Pass@1 & Pass@5 & API Acc. & Latency \\
\midrule
GPT-4 (zero-shot) & 42.3 & 61.7 & 53.1 & 2.1s \\
GPT-4 (few-shot) & 55.8 & 72.4 & 71.2 & 2.3s \\
\textbf{Ours} & \textbf{68.0} & \textbf{81.2} & \textbf{91.8} & 2.8s \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
```
**Table conventions**:
- Caption above the table (IEEE/ACM standard)
- Bold the best result in each column
- Use `\toprule`, `\midrule`, `\bottomrule` (booktabs) — no vertical lines
- Include statistical significance indicators (†, *, **) with footnotes
### Discussion
Address:
1. **Why does your method work?** — Provide intuition and analysis
2. **When does it fail?** — Failure case analysis builds credibility
3. **Ablation study** — Remove components one at a time
4. **Threats to validity** — Internal, external, construct validity
## Citation Formatting
### IEEE Style
```latex
% Numeric citations in square brackets
As shown by Smith et al. \cite{smith2024}, ...
Several studies \cite{smith2024, jones2023, lee2025} have shown ...
% BibTeX entry
@inproceedings{smith2024,
author = {Smith, John and Doe, Jane},
title = {Paper Title Here},
booktitle = {Proceedings of ICSE 2024},
year = {2024},
pages = {100--110},
doi = {10.1145/1234567.1234568}
}
```
### ACM Style
```latex
% Author-year or numeric depending on template
\citet{smith2024} showed that ... % Smith et al. (2024)
\citep{smith2024} % (Smith et al., 2024)
```
### Citation Best Practices
- Cite **40-60 references** for a conference paper, **60-100** for a journal
- Include papers from the **target venue** (shows you know the community)
- Cite **recent work** (at least 30% from last 2 years)
- Always cite the **original source**, not a survey that mentions it
- Use DOI links in bibliography entries for verifiability
## Submission Checklist
```markdown
## Pre-Submission Checks
- [ ] Paper fits within page limit (including references for ACM, excluding for IEEE)
- [ ] Abstract under 250 words
- [ ] All figures are vector graphics (PDF) or high-resolution (≥300 DPI)
- [ ] Figure/table captions are self-contained (understandable without reading text)
- [ ] All references are complete (no "et al." in BibTeX, no missing venues/years)
- [ ] No orphan sections (every section has ≥2 paragraphs)
- [ ] Supplementary material / appendix prepared if needed
- [ ] Anonymous version: no author names, no "our previous work [1]" self-citations
- [ ] Spell check and grammar check completed
- [ ] PDF metadata does not reveal author identity (for double-blind review)
```
## References
- [IEEE Author Tools](https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/)
- [ACM Primary Article Templates](https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template)
- [ACM CCS Tree](https://dl.acm.org/ccs)
- [Booktabs Package Documentation](https://ctan.org/pkg/booktabs)Related Skills
elegant-paper-template
Beautiful LaTeX template for working papers and technical reports
conference-paper-template
Templates and formatting guides for major academic conference submissions
paper-polish-guide
Review and polish LaTeX research papers for clarity and style
ml-paper-writing
Write ML/AI research papers targeting NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR venues
papersgpt-zotero-guide
AI plugin for Zotero with ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek support
multilingual-research-guide
Strategies for translating academic papers while preserving technical accuracy
paper-parse-guide
Deep dual-mode reading of academic papers from PDF or URL sources
scientify-write-review-paper
Write literature reviews and survey papers from collected papers
paper-reading-assistant
AI-assisted paper reading, PDF Q&A, and summarization workflows
paper-critique-framework
Structured framework for writing peer review reports and paper critiques
paper-review-skills
8 peer review skills. Trigger: reviewing manuscripts, comparing papers, quality assessment. Design: systematic review criteria, evaluation rubrics, and automated review tools.
research-paper-kb
Build a persistent cross-session knowledge base from academic papers