@r1z4x/tezgah 1.0.0

package/skills/ai-research/20-ml-paper-writing/ml-paper-writing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,982 @@
+---
+name: ml-paper-writing
+description: Write publication-ready ML/AI papers for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM. Use when drafting papers from research repos, structuring arguments, verifying citations, or preparing camera-ready submissions. For systems venues (OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP), use systems-paper-writing instead.
+version: 1.2.0
+author: Orchestra Research
+license: MIT
+tags: [Academic Writing, NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM, LaTeX, Paper Writing, Citations, Research]
+dependencies: [semanticscholar, arxiv, habanero, requests]
+---
+
+# ML Paper Writing for Top AI Conferences
+
+Expert-level guidance for writing publication-ready papers targeting **NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM**. This skill combines writing philosophy from top researchers (Nanda, Farquhar, Karpathy, Lipton, Steinhardt) with practical tools: LaTeX templates, citation verification APIs, and conference checklists.
+
+**For systems venues (OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP)**, use the [systems-paper-writing](../systems-paper-writing/) skill, which provides paragraph-level structural blueprints, writing patterns, venue-specific checklists, and LaTeX templates for systems conferences.
+
+## Core Philosophy: Collaborative Writing
+
+**Paper writing is collaborative, but Claude should be proactive in delivering drafts.**
+
+The typical workflow starts with a research repository containing code, results, and experimental artifacts. Claude's role is to:
+
+1. **Understand the project** by exploring the repo, results, and existing documentation
+2. **Deliver a complete first draft** when confident about the contribution
+3. **Search literature** using web search and APIs to find relevant citations
+4. **Refine through feedback cycles** when the scientist provides input
+5. **Ask for clarification** only when genuinely uncertain about key decisions
+
+**Key Principle**: Be proactive. If the repo and results are clear, deliver a full draft. Don't block waiting for feedback on every section—scientists are busy. Produce something concrete they can react to, then iterate based on their response.
+
+---
+
+## ⚠️ CRITICAL: Never Hallucinate Citations
+
+**This is the most important rule in academic writing with AI assistance.**
+
+### The Problem
+AI-generated citations have a **~40% error rate**. Hallucinated references—papers that don't exist, wrong authors, incorrect years, fabricated DOIs—are a serious form of academic misconduct that can result in desk rejection or retraction.
+
+### The Rule
+**NEVER generate BibTeX entries from memory. ALWAYS fetch programmatically.**
+
+| Action | ✅ Correct | ❌ Wrong |
+|--------|-----------|----------|
+| Adding a citation | Search API → verify → fetch BibTeX | Write BibTeX from memory |
+| Uncertain about a paper | Mark as `[CITATION NEEDED]` | Guess the reference |
+| Can't find exact paper | Note: "placeholder - verify" | Invent similar-sounding paper |
+
+### When You Can't Verify a Citation
+
+If you cannot programmatically verify a citation, you MUST:
+
+```latex
+% EXPLICIT PLACEHOLDER - requires human verification
+\cite{PLACEHOLDER_author2024_verify_this}  % TODO: Verify this citation exists
+```
+
+**Always tell the scientist**: "I've marked [X] citations as placeholders that need verification. I could not confirm these papers exist."
+
+### Recommended: Install Exa MCP for Paper Search
+
+For the best paper search experience, install **Exa MCP** which provides real-time academic search:
+
+**Claude Code:**
+```bash
+claude mcp add exa -- npx -y mcp-remote "https://mcp.exa.ai/mcp"
+```
+
+**Cursor / VS Code** (add to MCP settings):
+```json
+{
+  "mcpServers": {
+    "exa": {
+      "type": "http",
+      "url": "https://mcp.exa.ai/mcp"
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+Exa MCP enables searches like:
+- "Find papers on RLHF for language models published after 2023"
+- "Search for transformer architecture papers by Vaswani"
+- "Get recent work on sparse autoencoders for interpretability"
+
+Then verify results with Semantic Scholar API and fetch BibTeX via DOI.
+
+---
+
+## Workflow 0: Starting from a Research Repository
+
+When beginning paper writing, start by understanding the project:
+
+```
+Project Understanding:
+- [ ] Step 1: Explore the repository structure
+- [ ] Step 2: Read README, existing docs, and key results
+- [ ] Step 3: Identify the main contribution with the scientist
+- [ ] Step 4: Find papers already cited in the codebase
+- [ ] Step 5: Search for additional relevant literature
+- [ ] Step 6: Outline the paper structure together
+- [ ] Step 7: Draft sections iteratively with feedback
+```
+
+**Step 1: Explore the Repository**
+
+```bash
+# Understand project structure
+ls -la
+find . -name "*.py" | head -20
+find . -name "*.md" -o -name "*.txt" | xargs grep -l -i "result\|conclusion\|finding"
+```
+
+Look for:
+- `README.md` - Project overview and claims
+- `results/`, `outputs/`, `experiments/` - Key findings
+- `configs/` - Experimental settings
+- Existing `.bib` files or citation references
+- Any draft documents or notes
+
+**Step 2: Identify Existing Citations**
+
+Check for papers already referenced in the codebase:
+
+```bash
+# Find existing citations
+grep -r "arxiv\|doi\|cite" --include="*.md" --include="*.bib" --include="*.py"
+find . -name "*.bib"
+```
+
+These are high-signal starting points for Related Work—the scientist has already deemed them relevant.
+
+**Step 3: Clarify the Contribution**
+
+Before writing, explicitly confirm with the scientist:
+
+> "Based on my understanding of the repo, the main contribution appears to be [X].
+> The key results show [Y]. Is this the framing you want for the paper,
+> or should we emphasize different aspects?"
+
+**Never assume the narrative—always verify with the human.**
+
+**Step 4: Search for Additional Literature**
+
+Use web search to find relevant papers:
+
+```
+Search queries to try:
+- "[main technique] + [application domain]"
+- "[baseline method] comparison"
+- "[problem name] state-of-the-art"
+- Author names from existing citations
+```
+
+Then verify and retrieve BibTeX using the citation workflow below.
+
+**Step 5: Deliver a First Draft**
+
+**Be proactive—deliver a complete draft rather than asking permission for each section.**
+
+If the repo provides clear results and the contribution is apparent:
+1. Write the full first draft end-to-end
+2. Present the complete draft for feedback
+3. Iterate based on scientist's response
+
+If genuinely uncertain about framing or major claims:
+1. Draft what you can confidently
+2. Flag specific uncertainties: "I framed X as the main contribution—let me know if you'd prefer to emphasize Y instead"
+3. Continue with the draft rather than blocking
+
+**Questions to include with the draft** (not before):
+- "I emphasized X as the main contribution—adjust if needed"
+- "I highlighted results A, B, C—let me know if others are more important"
+- "Related work section includes [papers]—add any I missed"
+
+---
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+Use this skill when:
+- **Starting from a research repo** to write a paper
+- **Drafting or revising** specific sections
+- **Finding and verifying citations** for related work
+- **Formatting** for conference submission
+- **Resubmitting** to a different venue (format conversion)
+- **Iterating** on drafts with scientist feedback
+
+**Always remember**: First drafts are starting points for discussion, not final outputs.
+
+---
+
+## Balancing Proactivity and Collaboration
+
+**Default: Be proactive. Deliver drafts, then iterate.**
+
+| Confidence Level | Action |
+|-----------------|--------|
+| **High** (clear repo, obvious contribution) | Write full draft, deliver, iterate on feedback |
+| **Medium** (some ambiguity) | Write draft with flagged uncertainties, continue |
+| **Low** (major unknowns) | Ask 1-2 targeted questions, then draft |
+
+**Draft first, ask with the draft** (not before):
+
+| Section | Draft Autonomously | Flag With Draft |
+|---------|-------------------|-----------------|
+| Abstract | Yes | "Framed contribution as X—adjust if needed" |
+| Introduction | Yes | "Emphasized problem Y—correct if wrong" |
+| Methods | Yes | "Included details A, B, C—add missing pieces" |
+| Experiments | Yes | "Highlighted results 1, 2, 3—reorder if needed" |
+| Related Work | Yes | "Cited papers X, Y, Z—add any I missed" |
+
+**Only block for input when:**
+- Target venue is unclear (affects page limits, framing)
+- Multiple contradictory framings seem equally valid
+- Results seem incomplete or inconsistent
+- Explicit request to review before continuing
+
+**Don't block for:**
+- Word choice decisions
+- Section ordering
+- Which specific results to show (make a choice, flag it)
+- Citation completeness (draft with what you find, note gaps)
+
+---
+
+## The Narrative Principle
+
+**The single most critical insight**: Your paper is not a collection of experiments—it's a story with one clear contribution supported by evidence.
+
+Every successful ML paper centers on what Neel Nanda calls "the narrative": a short, rigorous, evidence-based technical story with a takeaway readers care about.
+
+**Three Pillars (must be crystal clear by end of introduction):**
+
+| Pillar | Description | Example |
+|--------|-------------|---------|
+| **The What** | 1-3 specific novel claims within cohesive theme | "We prove that X achieves Y under condition Z" |
+| **The Why** | Rigorous empirical evidence supporting claims | Strong baselines, experiments distinguishing hypotheses |
+| **The So What** | Why readers should care | Connection to recognized community problems |
+
+**If you cannot state your contribution in one sentence, you don't yet have a paper.**
+
+---
+
+## Paper Structure Workflow
+
+### Workflow 1: Writing a Complete Paper (Iterative)
+
+Copy this checklist and track progress. **Each step involves drafting → feedback → revision:**
+
+```
+Paper Writing Progress:
+- [ ] Step 1: Define the one-sentence contribution (with scientist)
+- [ ] Step 2: Draft Figure 1 → get feedback → revise
+- [ ] Step 3: Draft abstract → get feedback → revise
+- [ ] Step 4: Draft introduction → get feedback → revise
+- [ ] Step 5: Draft methods → get feedback → revise
+- [ ] Step 6: Draft experiments → get feedback → revise
+- [ ] Step 7: Draft related work → get feedback → revise
+- [ ] Step 8: Draft limitations → get feedback → revise
+- [ ] Step 9: Complete paper checklist (required)
+- [ ] Step 10: Final review cycle and submission
+```
+
+**Step 1: Define the One-Sentence Contribution**
+
+**This step requires explicit confirmation from the scientist.**
+
+Before writing anything, articulate and verify:
+- What is the single thing your paper contributes?
+- What was not obvious or present before your work?
+
+> "I propose framing the contribution as: '[one sentence]'. Does this capture
+> what you see as the main takeaway? Should we adjust the emphasis?"
+
+**Step 2: Draft Figure 1**
+
+Figure 1 deserves special attention—many readers skip directly to it.
+- Convey core idea, approach, or most compelling result
+- Use vector graphics (PDF/EPS for plots)
+- Write captions that stand alone without main text
+- Ensure readability in black-and-white (8% of men have color vision deficiency)
+
+**Step 3: Write Abstract (5-Sentence Formula)**
+
+From Sebastian Farquhar (DeepMind):
+
+```
+1. What you achieved: "We introduce...", "We prove...", "We demonstrate..."
+2. Why this is hard and important
+3. How you do it (with specialist keywords for discoverability)
+4. What evidence you have
+5. Your most remarkable number/result
+```
+
+**Delete** generic openings like "Large language models have achieved remarkable success..."
+
+**Step 4: Write Introduction (1-1.5 pages max)**
+
+Must include:
+- 2-4 bullet contribution list (max 1-2 lines each in two-column format)
+- Clear problem statement
+- Brief approach overview
+- Methods should start by page 2-3 maximum
+
+**Step 5: Methods Section**
+
+Enable reimplementation:
+- Conceptual outline or pseudocode
+- All hyperparameters listed
+- Architectural details sufficient for reproduction
+- Present final design decisions; ablations go in experiments
+
+**Step 6: Experiments Section**
+
+For each experiment, explicitly state:
+- What claim it supports
+- How it connects to main contribution
+- Experimental setting (details in appendix)
+- What to observe: "the blue line shows X, which demonstrates Y"
+
+Requirements:
+- Error bars with methodology (standard deviation vs standard error)
+- Hyperparameter search ranges
+- Compute infrastructure (GPU type, total hours)
+- Seed-setting methods
+
+**Step 7: Related Work**
+
+Organize methodologically, not paper-by-paper:
+
+**Good:** "One line of work uses Floogledoodle's assumption [refs] whereas we use Doobersnoddle's assumption because..."
+
+**Bad:** "Snap et al. introduced X while Crackle et al. introduced Y."
+
+Cite generously—reviewers likely authored relevant papers.
+
+**Step 8: Limitations Section (REQUIRED)**
+
+All major conferences require this. Counter-intuitively, honesty helps:
+- Reviewers are instructed not to penalize honest limitation acknowledgment
+- Pre-empt criticisms by identifying weaknesses first
+- Explain why limitations don't undermine core claims
+
+**Step 9: Paper Checklist**
+
+NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR all require paper checklists. See [references/checklists.md](references/checklists.md).
+
+---
+
+## Writing Philosophy for Top ML Conferences
+
+**This section distills the most important writing principles from leading ML researchers.** These aren't optional style suggestions—they're what separates accepted papers from rejected ones.
+
+> "A paper is a short, rigorous, evidence-based technical story with a takeaway readers care about." — Neel Nanda
+
+### The Sources Behind This Guidance
+
+This skill synthesizes writing philosophy from researchers who have published extensively at top venues:
+
+| Source | Key Contribution | Link |
+|--------|-----------------|------|
+| **Neel Nanda** (Google DeepMind) | The Narrative Principle, What/Why/So What framework | [How to Write ML Papers](https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/eJGptPbbFPZGLpjsp/highly-opinionated-advice-on-how-to-write-ml-papers) |
+| **Sebastian Farquhar** (DeepMind) | 5-sentence abstract formula | [How to Write ML Papers](https://sebastianfarquhar.com/on-research/2024/11/04/how_to_write_ml_papers/) |
+| **Gopen & Swan** | 7 principles of reader expectations | [Science of Scientific Writing](https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~swanson/papers/science-of-writing.pdf) |
+| **Zachary Lipton** | Word choice, eliminating hedging | [Heuristics for Scientific Writing](https://www.approximatelycorrect.com/2018/01/29/heuristics-technical-scientific-writing-machine-learning-perspective/) |
+| **Jacob Steinhardt** (UC Berkeley) | Precision, consistent terminology | [Writing Tips](https://bounded-regret.ghost.io/) |
+| **Ethan Perez** (Anthropic) | Micro-level clarity tips | [Easy Paper Writing Tips](https://ethanperez.net/easy-paper-writing-tips/) |
+| **Andrej Karpathy** | Single contribution focus | Various lectures |
+
+**For deeper dives into any of these, see:**
+- [references/writing-guide.md](references/writing-guide.md) - Full explanations with examples
+- [references/sources.md](references/sources.md) - Complete bibliography
+
+### Time Allocation (From Neel Nanda)
+
+Spend approximately **equal time** on each of:
+1. The abstract
+2. The introduction
+3. The figures
+4. Everything else combined
+
+**Why?** Most reviewers form judgments before reaching your methods. Readers encounter your paper as: **title → abstract → introduction → figures → maybe the rest.**
+
+### Writing Style Guidelines
+
+#### Sentence-Level Clarity (Gopen & Swan's 7 Principles)
+
+These principles are based on how readers actually process prose. Violating them forces readers to spend cognitive effort on structure rather than content.
+
+| Principle | Rule | Example |
+|-----------|------|---------|
+| **Subject-verb proximity** | Keep subject and verb close | ❌ "The model, which was trained on..., achieves" → ✅ "The model achieves... after training on..." |
+| **Stress position** | Place emphasis at sentence ends | ❌ "Accuracy improves by 15% when using attention" → ✅ "When using attention, accuracy improves by **15%**" |
+| **Topic position** | Put context first, new info after | ✅ "Given these constraints, we propose..." |
+| **Old before new** | Familiar info → unfamiliar info | Link backward, then introduce new |
+| **One unit, one function** | Each paragraph makes one point | Split multi-point paragraphs |
+| **Action in verb** | Use verbs, not nominalizations | ❌ "We performed an analysis" → ✅ "We analyzed" |
+| **Context before new** | Set stage before presenting | Explain before showing equation |
+
+**Full 7 principles with detailed examples:** See [references/writing-guide.md](references/writing-guide.md#the-7-principles-of-reader-expectations)
+
+#### Micro-Level Tips (Ethan Perez)
+
+These small changes accumulate into significantly clearer prose:
+
+- **Minimize pronouns**: ❌ "This shows..." → ✅ "This result shows..."
+- **Verbs early**: Position verbs near sentence start
+- **Unfold apostrophes**: ❌ "X's Y" → ✅ "The Y of X" (when awkward)
+- **Delete filler words**: "actually," "a bit," "very," "really," "basically," "quite," "essentially"
+
+**Full micro-tips with examples:** See [references/writing-guide.md](references/writing-guide.md#micro-level-writing-tips)
+
+#### Word Choice (Zachary Lipton)
+
+- **Be specific**: ❌ "performance" → ✅ "accuracy" or "latency" (say what you mean)
+- **Eliminate hedging**: Drop "may" and "can" unless genuinely uncertain
+- **Avoid incremental vocabulary**: ❌ "combine," "modify," "expand" → ✅ "develop," "propose," "introduce"
+- **Delete intensifiers**: ❌ "provides *very* tight approximation" → ✅ "provides tight approximation"
+
+#### Precision Over Brevity (Jacob Steinhardt)
+
+- **Consistent terminology**: Different terms for same concept creates confusion. Pick one and stick with it.
+- **State assumptions formally**: Before theorems, list all assumptions explicitly
+- **Intuition + rigor**: Provide intuitive explanations alongside formal proofs
+
+### What Reviewers Actually Read
+
+Understanding reviewer behavior helps prioritize your effort:
+
+| Paper Section | % Reviewers Who Read | Implication |
+|---------------|---------------------|-------------|
+| Abstract | 100% | Must be perfect |
+| Introduction | 90%+ (skimmed) | Front-load contribution |
+| Figures | Examined before methods | Figure 1 is critical |
+| Methods | Only if interested | Don't bury the lede |
+| Appendix | Rarely | Put only supplementary details |
+
+**Bottom line**: If your abstract and intro don't hook reviewers, they may never read your brilliant methods section.
+
+---
+
+## Conference Requirements Quick Reference
+
+### ML/AI Conferences
+
+| Conference | Page Limit | Extra for Camera-Ready | Key Requirement |
+|------------|------------|------------------------|------------------|
+| **NeurIPS 2025** | 9 pages | +0 | Mandatory checklist, lay summary for accepted |
+| **ICML 2026** | 8 pages | +1 | Broader Impact Statement required |
+| **ICLR 2026** | 9 pages | +1 | LLM disclosure required, reciprocal reviewing |
+| **ACL 2025** | 8 pages (long) | varies | Limitations section mandatory |
+| **AAAI 2026** | 7 pages | +1 | Strict style file adherence |
+| **COLM 2025** | 9 pages | +1 | Focus on language models |
+
+**Systems Conferences (OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP)**: See the [systems-paper-writing](../systems-paper-writing/) skill for page limits, templates, deadlines, and submission rules.
+
+**Universal Requirements:**
+- Double-blind review (anonymize submissions)
+- References don't count toward page limit
+- Appendices unlimited but reviewers not required to read
+- LaTeX required for all venues
+
+**LaTeX Templates:** See [templates/](templates/) directory for all conference templates.
+
+---
+
+## Using LaTeX Templates Properly
+
+### Workflow 4: Starting a New Paper from Template
+
+**Always copy the entire template directory first, then write within it.**
+
+```
+Template Setup Checklist:
+- [ ] Step 1: Copy entire template directory to new project
+- [ ] Step 2: Verify template compiles as-is (before any changes)
+- [ ] Step 3: Read the template's example content to understand structure
+- [ ] Step 4: Replace example content section by section
+- [ ] Step 5: Keep template comments/examples as reference until done
+- [ ] Step 6: Clean up template artifacts only at the end
+```
+
+**Step 1: Copy the Full Template**
+
+```bash
+# Create your paper directory with the complete template
+cp -r templates/neurips2025/ ~/papers/my-new-paper/
+cd ~/papers/my-new-paper/
+
+# Verify structure is complete
+ls -la
+# Should see: main.tex, neurips.sty, Makefile, etc.
+```
+
+**⚠️ IMPORTANT**: Copy the ENTIRE directory, not just `main.tex`. Templates include:
+- Style files (`.sty`) - required for compilation
+- Bibliography styles (`.bst`) - required for references
+- Example content - useful as reference
+- Makefiles - for easy compilation
+
+**Step 2: Verify Template Compiles First**
+
+Before making ANY changes, compile the template as-is:
+
+```bash
+# Using latexmk (recommended)
+latexmk -pdf main.tex
+
+# Or manual compilation
+pdflatex main.tex
+bibtex main
+pdflatex main.tex
+pdflatex main.tex
+```
+
+If the unmodified template doesn't compile, fix that first. Common issues:
+- Missing TeX packages → install via `tlmgr install <package>`
+- Wrong TeX distribution → use TeX Live (recommended)
+
+**Step 3: Keep Template Content as Reference**
+
+Don't immediately delete all example content. Instead:
+
+```latex
+% KEEP template examples commented out as you write
+% This shows you the expected format
+
+% Template example (keep for reference):
+% \begin{figure}[t]
+%   \centering
+%   \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{example-image}
+%   \caption{Template shows caption style}
+% \end{figure}
+
+% Your actual figure:
+\begin{figure}[t]
+  \centering
+  \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{your-figure.pdf}
+  \caption{Your caption following the same style.}
+\end{figure}
+```
+
+**Step 4: Replace Content Section by Section**
+
+Work through the paper systematically:
+
+```
+Replacement Order:
+1. Title and authors (anonymize for submission)
+2. Abstract
+3. Introduction
+4. Methods
+5. Experiments
+6. Related Work
+7. Conclusion
+8. References (your .bib file)
+9. Appendix
+```
+
+For each section:
+1. Read the template's example content
+2. Note any special formatting or macros used
+3. Replace with your content following the same patterns
+4. Compile frequently to catch errors early
+
+**Step 5: Use Template Macros**
+
+Templates often define useful macros. Check the preamble for:
+
+```latex
+% Common template macros to use:
+\newcommand{\method}{YourMethodName}  % Consistent method naming
+\newcommand{\eg}{e.g.,\xspace}        % Proper abbreviations
+\newcommand{\ie}{i.e.,\xspace}
+\newcommand{\etal}{\textit{et al.}\xspace}
+```
+
+**Step 6: Clean Up Only at the End**
+
+Only remove template artifacts when paper is nearly complete:
+
+```latex
+% BEFORE SUBMISSION - remove these:
+% - Commented-out template examples
+% - Unused packages
+% - Template's example figures/tables
+% - Lorem ipsum or placeholder text
+
+% KEEP these:
+% - All style files (.sty)
+% - Bibliography style (.bst)
+% - Required packages from template
+% - Any custom macros you're using
+```
+
+### Template Pitfalls to Avoid
+
+| Pitfall | Problem | Solution |
+|---------|---------|----------|
+| Copying only `main.tex` | Missing `.sty`, won't compile | Copy entire directory |
+| Modifying `.sty` files | Breaks conference formatting | Never edit style files |
+| Adding random packages | Conflicts, breaks template | Only add if necessary |
+| Deleting template content too early | Lose formatting reference | Keep as comments until done |
+| Not compiling frequently | Errors accumulate | Compile after each section |
+
+### Quick Template Reference
+
+#### ML/AI Conferences
+
+| Conference | Main File | Key Style File | Notes |
+|------------|-----------|----------------|-------|
+| NeurIPS 2025 | `main.tex` | `neurips.sty` | Has Makefile |
+| ICML 2026 | `example_paper.tex` | `icml2026.sty` | Includes algorithm packages |
+| ICLR 2026 | `iclr2026_conference.tex` | `iclr2026_conference.sty` | Has math_commands.tex |
+| ACL | `acl_latex.tex` | `acl.sty` | Strict formatting |
+| AAAI 2026 | `aaai2026-unified-template.tex` | `aaai2026.sty` | Very strict compliance |
+| COLM 2025 | `colm2025_conference.tex` | `colm2025_conference.sty` | Similar to ICLR |
+
+**Systems Conference Templates** (OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP): See the [systems-paper-writing](../systems-paper-writing/) skill.
+
+---
+
+## Conference Resubmission & Format Conversion
+
+When a paper is rejected or withdrawn from one venue and resubmitted to another, format conversion is required. This is a common workflow in ML research.
+
+### Workflow 3: Converting Between Conference Formats
+
+```
+Format Conversion Checklist:
+- [ ] Step 1: Identify source and target template differences
+- [ ] Step 2: Create new project with target template
+- [ ] Step 3: Copy content sections (not preamble)
+- [ ] Step 4: Adjust page limits and content
+- [ ] Step 5: Update conference-specific requirements
+- [ ] Step 6: Verify compilation and formatting
+```
+
+**Step 1: Key Template Differences**
+
+#### ML/AI Conversions
+
+| From → To | Page Change | Key Adjustments |
+|-----------|-------------|------------------|
+| NeurIPS → ICML | 9 → 8 pages | Cut 1 page, add Broader Impact if missing |
+| ICML → ICLR | 8 → 9 pages | Can expand experiments, add LLM disclosure |
+| NeurIPS → ACL | 9 → 8 pages | Restructure for NLP conventions, add Limitations |
+| ICLR → AAAI | 9 → 7 pages | Significant cuts needed, strict style adherence |
+| Any → COLM | varies → 9 | Reframe for language model focus |
+
+**ML → Systems Conversion**: When converting to OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, or SOSP, see the [systems-paper-writing](../systems-paper-writing/) skill for format conversion guidance, templates, and structural differences.
+
+**Step 2: Content Migration (NOT Template Merge)**
+
+**Never copy LaTeX preambles between templates.** Instead:
+
+```bash
+# 1. Start fresh with target template
+cp -r templates/icml2026/ new_submission/
+
+# 2. Copy ONLY content sections from old paper
+# - Abstract text
+# - Section content (between \section{} commands)
+# - Figures and tables
+# - Bibliography entries
+
+# 3. Paste into target template structure
+```
+
+**Step 3: Adjusting for Page Limits**
+
+When cutting pages (e.g., NeurIPS 9 → AAAI 7):
+- Move detailed proofs to appendix
+- Condense related work (cite surveys instead of individual papers)
+- Combine similar experiments into unified tables
+- Use smaller figure sizes with subfigures
+- Tighten writing: eliminate redundancy, use active voice
+
+When expanding (e.g., ICML 8 → ICLR 9):
+- Add ablation studies reviewers requested
+- Expand limitations discussion
+- Include additional baselines
+- Add qualitative examples
+
+**Step 4: Conference-Specific Adjustments**
+
+#### ML/AI Venues
+
+| Target Venue | Required Additions |
+|--------------|-------------------|
+| **ICML** | Broader Impact Statement (after conclusion) |
+| **ICLR** | LLM usage disclosure, reciprocal reviewing agreement |
+| **ACL/EMNLP** | Limitations section (mandatory), Ethics Statement |
+| **AAAI** | Strict adherence to style file (no modifications) |
+| **NeurIPS** | Paper checklist (appendix), lay summary if accepted |
+
+**Systems Venues** (OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP): See the [systems-paper-writing](../systems-paper-writing/) skill for venue-specific requirements, checklists, and reviewer guidelines.
+
+**Step 5: Update References**
+
+```latex
+% Remove self-citations that reveal identity (for blind review)
+% Update any "under review" citations to published versions
+% Add new relevant work published since last submission
+```
+
+**Step 6: Addressing Previous Reviews**
+
+When resubmitting after rejection:
+- **Do** address reviewer concerns in the new version
+- **Do** add experiments/clarifications reviewers requested
+- **Don't** include a "changes from previous submission" section (blind review)
+- **Don't** reference the previous submission or reviews
+
+**Common Conversion Pitfalls:**
+- ❌ Copying `\usepackage` commands (causes conflicts)
+- ❌ Keeping old conference header/footer commands
+- ❌ Forgetting to update `\bibliography{}` path
+- ❌ Missing conference-specific required sections
+- ❌ Exceeding page limit after format change
+
+---
+
+## Citation Workflow (Hallucination Prevention)
+
+**⚠️ CRITICAL**: AI-generated citations have ~40% error rate. **Never write BibTeX from memory.**
+
+### The Golden Rule
+
+```
+IF you cannot programmatically fetch a citation:
+    → Mark it as [CITATION NEEDED] or [PLACEHOLDER - VERIFY]
+    → Tell the scientist explicitly
+    → NEVER invent a plausible-sounding reference
+```
+
+### Workflow 2: Adding Citations
+
+```
+Citation Verification (MANDATORY for every citation):
+- [ ] Step 1: Search using Exa MCP or Semantic Scholar API
+- [ ] Step 2: Verify paper exists in 2+ sources (Semantic Scholar + arXiv/CrossRef)
+- [ ] Step 3: Retrieve BibTeX via DOI (programmatically, not from memory)
+- [ ] Step 4: Verify the claim you're citing actually appears in the paper
+- [ ] Step 5: Add verified BibTeX to bibliography
+- [ ] Step 6: If ANY step fails → mark as placeholder, inform scientist
+```
+
+**Step 0: Use Exa MCP for Initial Search (Recommended)**
+
+If Exa MCP is installed, use it to find relevant papers:
+```
+Search: "RLHF language model alignment 2023"
+Search: "sparse autoencoders interpretability"
+Search: "attention mechanism transformers Vaswani"
+```
+
+Then verify each result with Semantic Scholar and fetch BibTeX via DOI.
+
+**Step 1: Search Semantic Scholar**
+
+```python
+from semanticscholar import SemanticScholar
+
+sch = SemanticScholar()
+results = sch.search_paper("attention mechanism transformers", limit=5)
+for paper in results:
+    print(f"{paper.title} - {paper.paperId}")
+    print(f"  DOI: {paper.externalIds.get('DOI', 'N/A')}")
+```
+
+**Step 2: Verify Existence**
+
+Confirm paper appears in at least two sources (Semantic Scholar + CrossRef/arXiv).
+
+**Step 3: Retrieve BibTeX via DOI**
+
+```python
+import requests
+
+def doi_to_bibtex(doi: str) -> str:
+    """Get verified BibTeX from DOI via CrossRef."""
+    response = requests.get(
+        f"https://doi.org/{doi}",
+        headers={"Accept": "application/x-bibtex"}
+    )
+    response.raise_for_status()
+    return response.text
+
+# Example
+bibtex = doi_to_bibtex("10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762")
+print(bibtex)
+```
+
+**Step 4: Verify Claims**
+
+Before citing for a specific claim, access the paper and confirm the attributed claim actually appears.
+
+**Step 5: Handle Failures Explicitly**
+
+If you cannot verify a citation at ANY step:
+
+```latex
+% Option 1: Explicit placeholder
+\cite{PLACEHOLDER_smith2023_verify}  % TODO: Could not verify - scientist must confirm
+
+% Option 2: Note in text
+... as shown in prior work [CITATION NEEDED - could not verify Smith et al. 2023].
+```
+
+**Always inform the scientist:**
+> "I could not verify the following citations and have marked them as placeholders:
+> - Smith et al. 2023 on reward hacking - could not find in Semantic Scholar
+> - Jones 2022 on scaling laws - found similar paper but different authors
+> Please verify these before submission."
+
+### Summary: Citation Rules
+
+| Situation | Action |
+|-----------|--------|
+| Found paper, got DOI, fetched BibTeX | ✅ Use the citation |
+| Found paper, no DOI | ✅ Use arXiv BibTeX or manual entry from paper |
+| Paper exists but can't fetch BibTeX | ⚠️ Mark placeholder, inform scientist |
+| Uncertain if paper exists | ❌ Mark `[CITATION NEEDED]`, inform scientist |
+| "I think there's a paper about X" | ❌ **NEVER cite** - search first or mark placeholder |
+
+**🚨 NEVER generate BibTeX from memory—always fetch programmatically. 🚨**
+
+See [references/citation-workflow.md](references/citation-workflow.md) for complete API documentation.
+
+---
+
+## Common Issues and Solutions
+
+**Issue: Abstract too generic**
+
+Delete first sentence if it could be prepended to any ML paper. Start with your specific contribution.
+
+**Issue: Introduction exceeds 1.5 pages**
+
+Split background into Related Work. Front-load contribution bullets. Methods should start by page 2-3.
+
+**Issue: Experiments lack explicit claims**
+
+Add sentence before each experiment: "This experiment tests whether [specific claim]..."
+
+**Issue: Reviewers find paper hard to follow**
+
+- Add explicit signposting: "In this section, we show X"
+- Use consistent terminology throughout
+- Include figure captions that stand alone
+
+**Issue: Missing statistical significance**
+
+Always include:
+- Error bars (specify: std dev or std error)
+- Number of runs
+- Statistical tests if comparing methods
+
+---
+
+## Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
+
+Reviewers assess papers on four dimensions:
+
+| Criterion | What Reviewers Look For |
+|-----------|------------------------|
+| **Quality** | Technical soundness, well-supported claims |
+| **Clarity** | Clear writing, reproducible by experts |
+| **Significance** | Community impact, advances understanding |
+| **Originality** | New insights (doesn't require new method) |
+
+**Scoring (NeurIPS 6-point scale):**
+- 6: Strong Accept - Groundbreaking, flawless
+- 5: Accept - Technically solid, high impact
+- 4: Borderline Accept - Solid, limited evaluation
+- 3: Borderline Reject - Solid but weaknesses outweigh
+- 2: Reject - Technical flaws
+- 1: Strong Reject - Known results or ethics issues
+
+See [references/reviewer-guidelines.md](references/reviewer-guidelines.md) for detailed reviewer instructions.
+
+---
+
+## Tables and Figures
+
+### Tables
+
+Use `booktabs` LaTeX package for professional tables:
+
+```latex
+\usepackage{booktabs}
+\begin{tabular}{lcc}
+\toprule
+Method & Accuracy ↑ & Latency ↓ \\
+\midrule
+Baseline & 85.2 & 45ms \\
+\textbf{Ours} & \textbf{92.1} & 38ms \\
+\bottomrule
+\end{tabular}
+```
+
+**Rules:**
+- Bold best value per metric
+- Include direction symbols (↑ higher is better, ↓ lower is better)
+- Right-align numerical columns
+- Consistent decimal precision
+
+### Figures
+
+- **Vector graphics** (PDF, EPS) for all plots and diagrams
+- **Raster** (PNG 600 DPI) only for photographs
+- Use **colorblind-safe palettes** (Okabe-Ito or Paul Tol)
+- Verify **grayscale readability** (8% of men have color vision deficiency)
+- **No title inside figure**—the caption serves this function
+- **Self-contained captions**—reader should understand without main text
+
+---
+
+## Citing AI Research Skills
+
+If this library helped with your research — whether for training pipelines, evaluation, paper writing, or any other skill — please consider citing it in your acknowledgments or references:
+
+```bibtex
+@software{ai_research_skills,
+  title     = {AI Research Skills Library},
+  author    = {{Orchestra Research}},
+  year      = {2025},
+  url       = {https://github.com/orchestra-research/AI-research-SKILLs},
+  note      = {Open-source skills library enabling AI agents to autonomously conduct AI research}
+}
+```
+
+A brief mention in your **Acknowledgments** section is also welcome:
+
+```latex
+\section*{Acknowledgments}
+We used the AI Research Skills Library~\cite{ai_research_skills} for [experiment orchestration / evaluation / ...].
+```
+
+---
+
+## References & Resources
+
+### Reference Documents (Deep Dives)
+
+| Document | Contents |
+|----------|----------|
+| [writing-guide.md](references/writing-guide.md) | Gopen & Swan 7 principles, Ethan Perez micro-tips, word choice |
+| [citation-workflow.md](references/citation-workflow.md) | Citation APIs, Python code, BibTeX management |
+| [checklists.md](references/checklists.md) | NeurIPS 16-item, ICML, ICLR, ACL requirements |
+| [reviewer-guidelines.md](references/reviewer-guidelines.md) | Evaluation criteria, scoring, rebuttals |
+| [sources.md](references/sources.md) | Complete bibliography of all sources |
+
+### LaTeX Templates
+
+Templates in `templates/` directory:
+- **ML/AI**: ICML 2026, ICLR 2026, NeurIPS 2025, ACL/EMNLP, AAAI 2026, COLM 2025
+- **Systems** (OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP): See [systems-paper-writing](../systems-paper-writing/) skill
+
+**Compiling to PDF:**
+- **VS Code/Cursor**: Install LaTeX Workshop extension + TeX Live → Save to auto-compile
+- **Command line**: `latexmk -pdf main.tex` or `pdflatex` + `bibtex` workflow
+- **Online**: Upload to [Overleaf](https://overleaf.com)
+
+See [templates/README.md](templates/README.md) for detailed setup instructions.
+
+### Key External Sources
+
+**Writing Philosophy:**
+- [Neel Nanda: How to Write ML Papers](https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/eJGptPbbFPZGLpjsp/highly-opinionated-advice-on-how-to-write-ml-papers) - Narrative, "What/Why/So What"
+- [Farquhar: How to Write ML Papers](https://sebastianfarquhar.com/on-research/2024/11/04/how_to_write_ml_papers/) - 5-sentence abstract
+- [Gopen & Swan: Science of Scientific Writing](https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~swanson/papers/science-of-writing.pdf) - 7 reader expectation principles
+- [Lipton: Heuristics for Scientific Writing](https://www.approximatelycorrect.com/2018/01/29/heuristics-technical-scientific-writing-machine-learning-perspective/) - Word choice
+- [Perez: Easy Paper Writing Tips](https://ethanperez.net/easy-paper-writing-tips/) - Micro-level clarity
+
+**APIs:** [Semantic Scholar](https://api.semanticscholar.org/api-docs/) | [CrossRef](https://www.crossref.org/documentation/retrieve-metadata/rest-api/) | [arXiv](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/basics.html)
+
+**ML/AI Venues:** [NeurIPS](https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2025/PaperInformation/StyleFiles) | [ICML](https://icml.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorInstructions) | [ICLR](https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2026/AuthorGuide) | [ACL](https://github.com/acl-org/acl-style-files)
+
+**Systems Venues:** See the [systems-paper-writing](../systems-paper-writing/) skill for OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP links and guides
+