@research-copilot/plugin 1.1.17 → 1.1.19

package/dist/skills/composer/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,840 @@
+---
+name: academic-paper-composer
+description: Systematic writing framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. Use when users want to: (1) write a paper from a detailed outline, (2) ensure quality control during writing, (3) maintain consistency across chapters, (4) prepare a submission-ready manuscript, or (5) systematically execute a planned paper. Triggered by phrases like 'write the paper from this outline,' 'compose the full manuscript,' 'execute the outline,' or when users have completed strategic planning (academic-paper-strategist skill) and are ready to write. Takes optimized outline as input; outputs complete manuscript with iterative quality checks.
+---
+
+# Academic Paper Composer
+
+## Overview
+
+This skill provides a systematic framework for writing academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. It implements iterative quality control at both chapter-level and paper-level, ensuring consistent high quality throughout the writing process.
+
+**Input**: Detailed, optimized paper outline (from academic-paper-strategist or equivalent)
+
+**Output**: Complete, submission-ready manuscript with quality validation reports
+
+**Prerequisite**: Use **academic-paper-strategist** skill first to create optimized outline (or provide equivalent detailed outline)
+
+---
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+Use **academic-paper-composer** when you need to:
+
+**Writing Stage**:
+- Execute a detailed paper outline systematically
+- Write a complete academic paper chapter-by-chapter
+- Maintain quality control during writing process
+- Ensure consistency across all sections
+
+**Quality Assurance Stage**:
+- Validate each chapter before proceeding
+- Check cross-chapter coherence
+- Perform final quality assessment
+- Verify submission readiness
+
+**Submission Preparation Stage**:
+- Prepare manuscript for platform submission
+- Complete platform-specific checklists
+- Generate final submission package
+
+**Triggers**:
+- "Write the paper from this outline"
+- "Compose the full manuscript"
+- "Execute the outline systematically"
+- "I have an outline, help me write the paper"
+- After completing academic-paper-strategist skill
+
+---
+
+## Workflow Overview
+
+```
+Phase 4: SYSTEMATIC WRITING (Chapter-by-Chapter + Quality Gates)
+    ↓
+Phase 5: QUALITY CONTROL (Final Validation + Submission Prep)
+    ↓
+Output: Submission-Ready Manuscript + Quality Reports
+```
+
+**Quality Gates**: After each chapter + final paper evaluation
+
+---
+
+## Required Input
+
+Before using this skill, you must provide:
+
+### 1. Optimized Detailed Outline
+**Required structure**:
+```markdown
+## Abstract (250-300 words)
+- [Key points to cover]
+
+## 1. Introduction (1,500 words)
+### 1.1 Opening Puzzle (400 words)
+- [Content guidance]
+### 1.2 Literature Review (600 words)
+- [Theories to discuss]
+### 1.3 This Paper's Contribution (500 words)
+- [Specific claims]
+
+## 2. [Main Chapter Title] (1,200 words)
+### 2.1 [Section] (400 words)
+- [Argument structure]
+- [Key citations]
+...
+
+[Complete structure with word counts and content guidance]
+```
+
+**Quality check**: Outline should specify:
+- ✓ Chapter titles and word counts
+- ✓ Subsection structure (to 3rd level)
+- ✓ Content guidance for each section
+- ✓ Key citations to include
+- ✓ Argument structure notes
+
+If outline lacks these, consider using **academic-paper-strategist** first.
+
+### 2. Platform Writing Standards Guide
+**From academic-paper-strategist Phase 1**, or equivalent document specifying:
+- Platform style patterns (voice, terminology, citation format)
+- Structural conventions
+- Example papers for reference
+
+### 3. Literature Base (Optional but Recommended)
+- List of core papers to cite
+- Research gap analysis
+- Key concepts to emphasize
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4: Systematic Writing
+
+### Goal
+Write complete manuscript chapter-by-chapter with iterative quality control.
+
+### Workflow
+
+#### Step 4.1: Writing Environment Setup
+
+Before writing, I will:
+
+1. **Verify outline completeness**:
+   - All chapters specified with word counts
+   - Content guidance provided
+   - Argument structure clear
+
+2. **Load reference documents**:
+   - Platform writing standards
+   - Section writing guides (`references/section_guides.md`)
+   - Quality standards (`references/writing_standards.md`)
+
+3. **Create writing tracker**:
+   ```markdown
+   # Writing Progress Tracker
+   - [ ] Abstract (250 words)
+   - [ ] Chapter 1: Introduction (1,500 words)
+   - [ ] Chapter 2: [Title] (1,200 words)
+   ...
+   - [ ] Conclusion (1,000 words)
+   - [ ] References
+   ```
+
+**Decision Point 1**: Confirm outline and standards loaded, ready to begin writing.
+
+#### Step 4.2: Chapter-by-Chapter Writing
+
+**For each chapter, I will follow this sequence**:
+
+##### A. Pre-Writing Review
+Before writing chapter N:
+1. **Review outline specification** for this chapter:
+   - Word count target
+   - Subsection structure
+   - Content guidance
+   - Key arguments/citations
+
+2. **Review previous chapter** (if N>1):
+   - Last paragraph of chapter N-1
+   - Key concepts introduced
+   - Promises to fulfill
+
+3. **Check section guide**:
+   - Load appropriate template from `references/section_guides.md`
+   - Review quality markers for this section type
+
+##### B. Writing Execution
+
+I will write the chapter following:
+
+**Content principles**:
+- **Follow outline exactly**: Respect structure and word counts
+- **Include specified citations**: Use literature from outline
+- **Maintain platform style**: Match voice and terminology
+- **Use section templates**: Follow appropriate guide from `section_guides.md`
+
+**Quality targets (pre-emptive)**:
+- Argument quality: Clear thesis, justified premises
+- Citation quality: All claims supported, proper format
+- Clarity: Precise prose, terms defined, good transitions
+- Structure: Logical flow, proper proportions
+- Style conformity: Match platform conventions
+
+**Output**: Complete chapter draft
+
+##### C. Post-Writing Evaluation
+
+After completing chapter draft, I will:
+
+1. **Create evaluation document**:
+   ```bash
+   python scripts/chapter_quality_check.py
+   # Option 1: Create template for this chapter
+   ```
+
+2. **Perform 5-dimension assessment**:
+   - **Argument Quality** (1-4): Thesis clear? Premises justified? Objections addressed?
+   - **Citation Quality** (1-4): All claims cited? Format consistent? Key literature included?
+   - **Clarity & Readability** (1-4): Prose clear? Terms defined? Transitions smooth?
+   - **Structure & Flow** (1-4): Logical progression? Proper proportions? Follows outline?
+   - **Platform Conformity** (1-4): Style match? Voice consistent? Format correct?
+
+3. **Generate quality report**:
+   ```bash
+   python scripts/chapter_quality_check.py
+   # Option 2: Generate report from evaluation
+   ```
+
+   This produces:
+   - Total score (X/20)
+   - Pass/fail (threshold: ≥16/20)
+   - Weak dimensions identified
+   - Specific revision recommendations
+
+**Quality Gate 4A** (After Each Chapter):
+- ✓ Score ≥16/20 (80%)
+- ✓ All dimensions ≥3/4 (or revisions implemented)
+- ✓ Word count within ±10% of target
+
+**If Failed**: Implement revisions before proceeding to next chapter
+
+##### D. Iteration (If Needed)
+
+If chapter scores <16/20:
+
+1. **Identify weak dimension(s)**: Which scored <3/4?
+
+2. **Implement targeted revisions**:
+   - Argument quality issue → Add justifications, address objections
+   - Citation quality issue → Add supporting citations, fix format
+   - Clarity issue → Simplify prose, add definitions, improve transitions
+   - Structure issue → Reorganize paragraphs, adjust proportions
+   - Style issue → Adjust voice, terminology, format
+
+3. **Re-evaluate**: Generate new quality report
+
+4. **Repeat until passing** (typically 1-2 iterations)
+
+**Important**: Do not proceed to next chapter until current chapter passes quality gate.
+
+##### E. Chapter Completion
+
+Once chapter passes quality gate:
+
+1. **Mark chapter complete** in writing tracker
+2. **Save chapter with quality report**
+3. **Note key concepts introduced** (for coherence check later)
+4. **Preview next chapter** requirements
+
+**Decision Point 2** (After Major Chapters): After completing each main body chapter, I will:
+- Present completed chapter summary
+- Show quality score
+- Ask: Proceed to next chapter or revise further?
+
+#### Step 4.3: Writing Sequence
+
+**Recommended order**:
+
+1. **Introduction** (write first)
+   - Establishes thesis and roadmap
+   - Use introduction guide from `section_guides.md`
+   - Quality check: Abstract promises, literature coverage, clear contribution
+
+2. **Main Body Chapters** (in outline order)
+   - Follow outline sequence
+   - Quality check after each
+   - Build on previous chapters
+
+3. **Conclusion** (write after main body)
+   - Synthesizes findings
+   - Addresses introduction promises
+   - Use conclusion guide from `section_guides.md`
+
+4. **Abstract** (write last)
+   - Summarizes complete paper
+   - Use abstract guide from `section_guides.md`
+   - Quality check: Standalone, accurate, compelling
+
+5. **References** (compile throughout)
+   - Format according to platform standards
+   - Verify all citations present
+
+#### Step 4.4: Cross-Chapter Coherence Check
+
+After all chapters written, before final evaluation:
+
+1. **Terminology consistency**:
+   - Extract key terms from each chapter
+   - Verify consistent usage throughout
+   - Check definitions consistent
+
+2. **Argument flow**:
+   - Verify chapter N+1 builds on chapter N
+   - Check roadmap (intro) matches execution
+   - Ensure conclusion addresses introduction promises
+
+3. **Citation patterns**:
+   - Check for uneven citation distribution
+   - Verify key works cited where relevant
+   - Ensure bibliography complete
+
+**Output**: Cross-chapter coherence report identifying any inconsistencies
+
+---
+
+## Phase 5: Quality Control
+
+### Goal
+Perform comprehensive final evaluation and prepare submission-ready manuscript.
+
+### Workflow
+
+#### Step 5.1: Content Completeness Check
+
+Using structured checklist, verify:
+
+**Structural Completeness**:
+- [ ] Abstract (250-300 words)
+- [ ] Introduction with all required elements
+- [ ] All outlined main chapters present
+- [ ] Conclusion with all required elements
+- [ ] References section formatted correctly
+
+**Content Completeness**:
+- [ ] All introduction promises fulfilled
+- [ ] All claims supported by evidence or argument
+- [ ] All technical terms defined
+- [ ] All objections addressed
+- [ ] All limitations acknowledged
+
+**Citation Completeness**:
+- [ ] Every citation in text has bibliography entry
+- [ ] Every bibliography entry cited in text
+- [ ] Citation format consistent throughout
+- [ ] All citations include necessary information
+
+**Format Completeness**:
+- [ ] Title page (if required)
+- [ ] Section numbering consistent
+- [ ] Heading hierarchy logical
+- [ ] Figure/table captions (if applicable)
+
+**Output**: Completeness checklist report
+
+#### Step 5.2: Final 7-Dimension Evaluation
+
+I will perform comprehensive evaluation using:
+
+```bash
+python scripts/final_evaluation.py
+# Create evaluation template
+```
+
+**7 Dimensions** (10 points each, 70 total):
+
+1. **Overall Argument Quality** (1-10)
+   - Thesis clarity throughout
+   - Chapter integration
+   - Logical completeness
+   - Objections addressed
+
+2. **Literature Integration** (1-10)
+   - Citation count (40-60 typical for philosophy)
+   - Key literature covered
+   - Citations well-integrated
+   - Critical engagement present
+
+3. **Clarity & Accessibility** (1-10)
+   - Prose clarity
+   - Complex ideas explained
+   - Appropriate for audience
+   - Technical terms defined
+
+4. **Originality & Contribution** (1-10)
+   - Clear original contribution
+   - Advance over literature
+   - Significance established
+   - Innovation present
+
+5. **Methodological Rigor** (1-10)
+   - Method explicit and justified
+   - Consistently applied
+   - Appropriate for question
+   - Limitations acknowledged
+
+6. **Structure & Organization** (1-10)
+   - Logical flow
+   - Optimal organization
+   - Proportions balanced
+   - Transitions seamless
+
+7. **Platform & Style Conformity** (1-10)
+   - Style matches platform
+   - Format correct
+   - Voice consistent
+   - Citation format perfect
+
+**Scoring Process**:
+1. Evaluate each dimension (1-10)
+2. Provide detailed notes for each
+3. Complete completeness checklist
+4. List any specific issues
+
+**Generate report**:
+```bash
+python scripts/final_evaluation.py
+# Generate final report
+```
+
+This produces:
+- Total score (X/70)
+- Pass/fail (threshold: ≥56/70)
+- Weak dimensions identified
+- Completeness assessment
+- Prioritized revision recommendations
+- Submission readiness decision
+
+**Quality Gate 5** (Final):
+- ✓ Score ≥56/70 (80%)
+- ✓ All completeness checklist items complete
+- ✓ All high-priority issues addressed
+
+**If Failed**: Implement revisions and re-evaluate
+
+#### Step 5.3: Revision Implementation (If Needed)
+
+If final score <56/70 or completeness incomplete:
+
+1. **Prioritize revisions**:
+   - HIGH priority: All issues affecting score or completeness
+   - MEDIUM priority: Issues improving quality
+   - LOW priority: Optional enhancements
+
+2. **Implement systematically**:
+   - Address high-priority first
+   - Document changes
+   - Maintain style consistency
+
+3. **Re-evaluate**:
+   - Generate new final report
+   - Verify score ≥56/70
+   - Check completeness 100%
+
+4. **Iterate until passing**
+
+**Decision Point 3**: After final evaluation, I will:
+- Present final score and assessment
+- Show submission readiness status
+- Recommend: Submit immediately / Implement optional improvements / Required revisions
+- Ask: Proceed with submission or implement further improvements?
+
+#### Step 5.4: Submission Package Preparation
+
+Once final evaluation passes:
+
+1. **Platform-specific checklist**:
+   - **PhilArchive/PhilPapers**:
+     - [ ] PDF format
+     - [ ] Abstract <500 words
+     - [ ] Metadata (title, keywords, classification)
+     - [ ] Author information complete
+
+   - **arXiv**:
+     - [ ] LaTeX or PDF format
+     - [ ] Abstract <1920 characters
+     - [ ] Category selection correct
+     - [ ] No font embedding issues
+
+   - **PhilSci-Archive**:
+     - [ ] PDF format
+     - [ ] Subject classification
+     - [ ] Keywords (3-5)
+     - [ ] No copyright issues
+
+2. **Generate final outputs**:
+   - Formatted manuscript (PDF or LaTeX)
+   - Abstract (separate file if needed)
+   - Metadata file
+   - Cover letter (if applicable)
+
+3. **Pre-submission verification**:
+   - Re-read complete paper
+   - Check all formatting
+   - Verify all links/citations work
+   - Proofread for typos
+
+**Output**: Complete submission package ready for platform upload
+
+---
+
+## Complete Output Package
+
+Upon completion of both phases, you receive:
+
+### Quality Reports
+1. **Chapter Quality Reports** (one per chapter)
+   - 5-dimension scores
+   - Pass/fail status
+   - Revision recommendations implemented
+
+2. **Cross-Chapter Coherence Report**
+   - Terminology consistency check
+   - Argument flow verification
+   - Citation pattern analysis
+
+3. **Final Evaluation Report** ⭐ **Key Document**
+   - 7-dimension comprehensive assessment
+   - Completeness checklist (100%)
+   - Submission readiness decision
+   - Platform-specific checklist
+
+### Manuscript Files
+1. **Complete Manuscript** ⭐ **Main Deliverable**
+   - All chapters integrated
+   - Properly formatted
+   - Citations complete
+   - Submission-ready
+
+2. **Abstract** (separate file)
+   - Standalone 250-300 words
+   - Platform-formatted
+
+3. **Metadata Document**
+   - Title, keywords, classification
+   - Author information
+   - Platform-specific requirements
+
+### Supporting Documentation
+1. **Writing Progress Tracker**
+   - All chapters completed
+   - Quality scores logged
+   - Revision history
+
+2. **Citation List**
+   - All references used
+   - Formatted for platform
+   - Verified complete
+
+---
+
+## Quality Assurance System
+
+### Quality Standards Reference
+
+For detailed evaluation criteria, all standards are defined in:
+```markdown
+references/writing_standards.md
+```
+
+This document provides:
+- Chapter-level quality standards (5 dimensions)
+- Final quality standards (7 dimensions)
+- Section-specific quality criteria
+- Scoring rubrics
+- Issue identification and fixes
+
+### Section Writing Guides
+
+For guidance on writing each section type:
+```markdown
+references/section_guides.md
+```
+
+This provides:
+- Abstract writing template and checklist
+- Introduction structure (6 subsections)
+- Main body chapter templates (4 types)
+- Conclusion structure
+- Transition strategies
+- Platform-specific style guidance
+- Common mistakes and fixes
+
+### Evaluation Scripts
+
+Two Python scripts support quality validation:
+
+#### 1. Chapter Quality Check
+```bash
+python scripts/chapter_quality_check.py
+```
+
+**Function**: Evaluates individual chapters against 5-dimension standards
+- Creates evaluation templates
+- Calculates scores and pass/fail
+- Identifies weak dimensions
+- Generates revision recommendations
+- Supports multi-chapter comparison
+
+**When to Use**: After writing each chapter (Step 4.2.C)
+
+#### 2. Final Paper Evaluation
+```bash
+python scripts/final_evaluation.py
+```
+
+**Function**: Evaluates complete paper against 7-dimension standards
+- Comprehensive quality assessment
+- Completeness checklist validation
+- Submission readiness determination
+- Platform-specific preparation
+- Generates final report with recommendations
+
+**When to Use**: After all chapters complete (Step 5.2)
+
+---
+
+## Decision Points (Interactive)
+
+This skill has **3 key decision points** where I pause for your input:
+
+### Decision Point 1: Writing Commencement (Step 4.1)
+**I provide**: Loaded outline, standards, and writing plan
+**You confirm**: Ready to begin writing / Need adjustments
+
+### Decision Point 2: Chapter Completion (Step 4.2.E)
+**I provide**: Completed chapter with quality score
+**You decide**: Proceed to next / Revise further / Adjust approach
+
+**Frequency**: After each main body chapter (3-5 times typically)
+
+### Decision Point 3: Final Submission (Step 5.3)
+**I provide**: Final evaluation report with score and readiness assessment
+**You decide**: Submit immediately / Implement optional improvements / Additional revisions
+
+---
+
+## Example Usage
+
+### User Request
+"I have the optimized outline from the strategist skill. Please write the complete paper on self-continuity during sleep."
+
+### Skill Response
+
+**Phase 4: Systematic Writing**
+
+1. **Setup**: Outline loaded (6 chapters, 9,600 words total). Platform: PhilArchive. Standards loaded. ✓
+
+2. **Chapter 1 - Introduction (1,500 words)**:
+   - Writing... [follows outline structure]
+   - Self-evaluation: Argument 4/4, Citation 3/4, Clarity 4/4, Structure 3/4, Style 4/4
+   - Score: 18/20 ✓ PASS
+   - **Decision Point 2**: Proceed to Chapter 2?
+
+3. **Chapter 2 - Narrative Compression Framework (1,200 words)**:
+   - Writing... [develops theoretical framework]
+   - Self-evaluation: All dimensions 3-4
+   - Score: 17/20 ✓ PASS
+   - **Decision Point 2**: Proceed to Chapter 3?
+
+4. **Chapter 3-5**: [Similar process for each chapter]
+
+5. **Chapter 6 - Conclusion (1,000 words)**:
+   - Writing... [synthesizes findings]
+   - Score: 18/20 ✓ PASS
+
+6. **Abstract (280 words)**:
+   - Writing... [summarizes complete paper]
+   - Score: 19/20 ✓ PASS
+
+7. **Cross-Chapter Coherence**: Terminology consistent ✓, Argument flow verified ✓, Citations complete ✓
+
+**Phase 5: Quality Control**
+
+1. **Completeness Check**: All items complete ✓ (18/18)
+
+2. **Final Evaluation**:
+   - Overall Argument: 9/10
+   - Literature Integration: 8/10 (48 citations)
+   - Clarity: 9/10
+   - Originality: 8/10
+   - Methodology: 8/10
+   - Structure: 9/10
+   - Platform Fit: 9/10
+   - **Total: 60/70 (85.7%)** ✓ PASS
+
+3. **Decision Point 3**: Paper scored 60/70 (Good quality, ready for submission). Submit now or implement optional improvements?
+
+4. **Submission Package**: PDF generated, metadata prepared, PhilArchive checklist complete ✓
+
+**Output**: Submission-ready manuscript + comprehensive quality reports
+
+---
+
+## Tips for Best Results
+
+### Provide Complete Outline
+- The more detailed your outline, the better the writing quality
+- Include content guidance for each section
+- Specify key citations and argument structure
+- Indicate expected word counts
+
+### Trust the Iterative Process
+- Chapter-level quality gates ensure each section is solid
+- Don't skip quality checks (they prevent cascading problems)
+- Revisions at chapter-level are easier than whole-paper revisions
+
+### Engage at Decision Points
+- Your input at decision points shapes the final manuscript
+- Feel free to request additional revisions even if chapter passes
+- Provide feedback on style or emphasis
+
+### Use Quality Reports
+- Chapter reports show specific weaknesses
+- Final report provides objective submission readiness assessment
+- Use reports to track improvement across chapters
+
+### Leverage Section Guides
+- I reference `section_guides.md` for each section type
+- You can review these guides directly if you want to understand the approach
+- Guides include templates, examples, and common mistakes
+
+---
+
+## Integration with Academic-Paper-Strategist
+
+This skill is designed to work seamlessly with **academic-paper-strategist**:
+
+**Ideal workflow**:
+1. Use **academic-paper-strategist** to:
+   - Identify optimal platform
+   - Conduct literature search
+   - Identify research gaps
+   - Assess originality
+   - Generate optimized detailed outline
+
+2. Use **academic-paper-composer** (this skill) to:
+   - Execute the outline systematically
+   - Maintain quality control during writing
+   - Produce submission-ready manuscript
+
+**Can be used standalone**: If you already have a detailed outline from another source, you can use this skill directly (skip strategist).
+
+---
+
+## Limitations and Notes
+
+- **Requires detailed outline**: Vague outlines produce lower-quality output; specificity is key
+- **Iterative process takes time**: Quality writing with validation requires patience; typical timeline: 1-2 days for 10,000-word paper
+- **Quality checks are systematic, not perfect**: Final human review recommended before submission
+- **Platform-specific formatting**: I adapt to platform standards, but you should verify final format
+- **Complementary to strategist skill**: Best results come from using both skills in sequence
+
+---
+
+## Common Issues and Solutions
+
+### Issue 1: Chapter Fails Quality Gate
+
+**Symptom**: Score <16/20 after writing chapter
+
+**Solution**:
+1. Review weak dimension(s) from report
+2. Implement specific recommendations
+3. Re-evaluate chapter
+4. Typical fix time: 30-60 minutes
+
+**Prevention**: Follow section guides closely during initial writing
+
+### Issue 2: Inconsistent Style Across Chapters
+
+**Symptom**: Some chapters feel different in tone or voice
+
+**Solution**:
+1. Run cross-chapter coherence check (Step 4.4)
+2. Identify inconsistent terminology or voice
+3. Revise to match dominant style
+4. Re-run check to verify
+
+**Prevention**: Reference platform standards before writing each chapter
+
+### Issue 3: Low Final Score (<56/70)
+
+**Symptom**: Paper fails final quality gate
+
+**Solution**:
+1. Identify weak dimensions from final report
+2. Focus on dimensions scoring <7/10
+3. Implement high-priority revisions systematically
+4. Re-evaluate after revisions
+
+**Common causes**: Insufficient literature integration, unclear contribution, poor coherence
+
+### Issue 4: Completeness Checklist Incomplete
+
+**Symptom**: Missing required elements
+
+**Solution**:
+1. Review which category has incomplete items
+2. Add missing elements (e.g., missing objections section, incomplete references)
+3. Re-run completeness check
+
+**Prevention**: Use writing tracker throughout; check outline completeness before starting
+
+---
+
+## Platform-Specific Notes
+
+### PhilArchive / PhilPapers
+- **Style**: First-person acceptable ("I argue")
+- **Length**: 5,000-12,000 words typical
+- **Citations**: APA or Chicago author-year
+- **Quality focus**: Philosophical rigor, argument clarity
+
+### arXiv (Philosophy-adjacent)
+- **Style**: More formal, passive voice common
+- **Length**: Varies widely (3,000-20,000)
+- **Citations**: Varies by subcategory
+- **Quality focus**: Interdisciplinary clarity, technical precision
+
+### PhilSci-Archive
+- **Style**: Bridges philosophical and scientific
+- **Length**: 6,000-15,000 words typical
+- **Citations**: Author-year typical
+- **Quality focus**: Integration of philosophy + science
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+**academic-paper-composer** transforms an optimized outline into a submission-ready manuscript through:
+
+1. **Systematic Writing** (Phase 4): Chapter-by-chapter execution with 5-dimension quality checks after each (≥16/20 threshold)
+2. **Quality Control** (Phase 5): Final 7-dimension assessment (≥56/70 threshold) + completeness validation + submission preparation
+
+**Quality Assurance**: Iterative evaluation at chapter and paper levels ensures consistent quality throughout.
+
+**Output**: Submission-ready manuscript with comprehensive quality reports documenting systematic validation.
+
+**Estimated Time**: 1-2 days for systematic writing and validation of 8,000-12,000 word paper (varies with outline detail and revision needs).
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**Prerequisite**: academic-paper-strategist
+- Produces the optimized outline that this skill executes
+- Highly recommended to use first for best results
+
+**This skill can be used standalone**: If you have a detailed outline from another source, you can proceed directly with this skill.