wtf-p 0.1.0

package/write-the-f-paper/templates/project-context/peer-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+# Peer Review Reference
+
+Reference document for understanding and responding to peer review.
+
+**Purpose:** Guide for interpreting reviewer comments and planning revisions.
+
+---
+
+## Understanding Reviewer Comments
+
+### Comment Types
+
+| Type | Definition | Response Strategy |
+|------|------------|-------------------|
+| **Required changes** | "Must revise X" | Fix exactly as requested |
+| **Suggestions** | "Consider adding Y" | Address or explain why not |
+| **Questions** | "Why did you choose Z?" | Answer clearly in revision |
+| **Concerns** | "I worry about the validity of..." | Address substantively |
+| **Minor notes** | "Typo on p. 5" | Fix immediately |
+
+### Reading Between the Lines
+
+**What they say → What they often mean:**
+
+- "This is unclear" → Rewrite this section
+- "More detail needed" → I couldn't follow your reasoning
+- "Citation needed" → This claim seems unsupported
+- "Consider X approach" → Why didn't you use X?
+- "The contribution is incremental" → I don't see the significance
+- "The sample size is small" → Acknowledge this limitation
+
+### Severity Assessment
+
+| Signal | Likely Meaning | Response Effort |
+|--------|----------------|-----------------|
+| "Minor revision" | Mostly good, small fixes | Days to a week |
+| "Major revision" | Solid core, significant work needed | Weeks to months |
+| "Reject with option to resubmit" | Fundamental issues, consider rethinking | Major rewrite |
+| "Reject" | Wrong venue or fundamental flaws | New submission elsewhere |
+
+## Response Letter Structure
+
+```markdown
+# Response to Reviewers
+
+Dear Editor and Reviewers,
+
+Thank you for the constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed all comments. Changes are highlighted in [blue/yellow] in the revised manuscript.
+
+Below we respond to each comment in detail.
+
+---
+
+## Response to Reviewer 1
+
+### Comment R1.1
+> [Exact quote of reviewer comment]
+
+**Response:** [How you addressed it]
+
+**Changes made:** [Page X, paragraph Y: specific changes]
+
+### Comment R1.2
+> [Exact quote]
+
+**Response:** [Your response]
+
+**Changes made:** [Specific locations]
+
+[Continue for all comments...]
+
+---
+
+## Response to Reviewer 2
+
+[Same structure...]
+
+---
+
+## Summary of Major Changes
+
+1. [Major change 1]
+2. [Major change 2]
+3. [Major change 3]
+
+Thank you again for the opportunity to improve our work.
+
+Sincerely,
+[Authors]
+```
+
+## Common Issues and Solutions
+
+### "The contribution is not clear"
+- Rewrite Introduction gap and contribution sections
+- Add explicit contribution statement
+- Strengthen the "so what" in Discussion
+
+### "Methods lack detail"
+- Add procedural specifics
+- Include participant demographics
+- Specify statistical tests with justification
+
+### "Sample size concerns"
+- Add power analysis (if available)
+- Cite precedent studies with similar N
+- Acknowledge as limitation with effect size discussion
+
+### "Missing related work"
+- Add suggested citations
+- Explain how your work relates
+- Position contribution more clearly
+
+### "Claims unsupported"
+- Add citations for each claim
+- Qualify overly strong claims
+- Add "future work" for unverified claims
+
+### "Statistical issues"
+- Consult statistician if needed
+- Justify test choices
+- Report effect sizes, not just p-values
+
+## Revision Workflow
+
+1. **Import comments** → `/wtfp:import-reviews`
+2. **Categorize by severity** → Critical / Major / Minor
+3. **Create revision plan** → `/wtfp:plan-revision`
+4. **Execute revisions** → `/wtfp:write-section`
+5. **Write response letter** → `/wtfp:respond-reviews`
+6. **Verify changes** → `/wtfp:review-section`
+
+## Response Tone Guide
+
+**Do:**
+- Thank reviewers for helpful comments
+- Be specific about changes made
+- Explain reasoning when not making a change
+- Quote the exact comment before responding
+- Point to specific page/line numbers
+
+**Don't:**
+- Be defensive or dismissive
+- Make excuses
+- Ignore any comment
+- Over-promise or under-deliver
+- Argue with reviewer opinions
+
+---
+
+*Peer review reference document*
+*Consult for revision planning*

package/write-the-f-paper/templates/project-context/style-guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+# Style Guide Template
+
+Template for `.planning/sources/style-guide.md` — writing conventions for this paper.
+
+**Purpose:** Document the stylistic conventions to follow. Ensures consistency and meets venue requirements.
+
+---
+
+## File Template
+
+```markdown
+# Style Guide
+
+**Venue:** [Journal/Conference name]
+**Style:** [APA 7th / Chicago / IEEE / Custom]
+**Created:** [date]
+
+## Formatting Requirements
+
+### Document Format
+- **Page limit:** [X pages / Y words]
+- **Font:** [Times New Roman 12pt / etc.]
+- **Margins:** [1 inch / 2.5 cm]
+- **Line spacing:** [Single / Double]
+- **Template:** [Link to venue template if applicable]
+
+### Section Requirements
+- Abstract: [word limit, structure requirements]
+- Keywords: [number required, format]
+- Headings: [numbering system, capitalization]
+- Figures/Tables: [placement, caption format]
+- References: [style, format]
+
+## Citation Style
+
+### In-Text Citations
+- Single author: (Smith, 2023)
+- Two authors: (Smith & Jones, 2023)
+- Three+ authors: (Smith et al., 2023)
+- Multiple citations: (Smith, 2023; Jones, 2024)
+- Direct quote: (Smith, 2023, p. 45)
+
+### Reference List
+- Format: [APA / Chicago / IEEE / other]
+- DOI: [Required / Preferred / Optional]
+- URL format: [Full URL / Shortened / None]
+
+## Writing Conventions
+
+### Voice and Tense
+- **Voice:** [Active preferred / Passive acceptable]
+- **Person:** [First person plural "we" / Third person]
+- **Tense:**
+  - Introduction: [Present for established facts, past for prior work]
+  - Methods: [Past tense for what was done]
+  - Results: [Past tense for findings]
+  - Discussion: [Present for interpretation, past for summary]
+
+### Terminology
+- Use: [Preferred terms for key concepts]
+- Avoid: [Terms to avoid or define]
+- Acronyms: [Define on first use, then use acronym]
+
+### Numbers and Statistics
+- Numbers: [Spell out one-nine, numerals for 10+]
+- Statistics: [Format: F(2, 45) = 3.21, p < .05]
+- Percentages: [45% / 45 percent]
+- Decimals: [Two decimal places for most statistics]
+
+## Discipline-Specific Conventions
+
+### [Field-specific section]
+- [Convention 1]
+- [Convention 2]
+- [Convention 3]
+
+## Common Errors to Avoid
+
+- [ ] Anthropomorphizing AI ("the model thinks...")
+- [ ] Hedging excessively ("it might possibly suggest...")
+- [ ] Passive voice overuse
+- [ ] Run-on sentences
+- [ ] Inconsistent terminology
+
+## Checklist Before Submission
+
+- [ ] Word/page count within limits
+- [ ] All sections present per venue requirements
+- [ ] Abstract meets word limit and structure
+- [ ] Keywords in required format
+- [ ] All citations in reference list
+- [ ] All references cited in text
+- [ ] Figures/tables numbered and captioned
+- [ ] Formatting matches template
+- [ ] Author information anonymized (if required)
+
+---
+
+*Style guide for: [Paper title]*
+*Venue: [Journal/Conference]*
+```
+
+<guidelines>
+
+**When to create:**
+- At project initialization
+- After confirming target venue
+- Before any significant writing
+
+**Key sections:**
+- Formatting: Page limits, fonts, margins
+- Citations: How to cite, reference format
+- Writing: Voice, tense, terminology
+- Discipline: Field-specific conventions
+
+**Sources for guidelines:**
+- Venue author guidelines
+- Style manual (APA, Chicago, etc.)
+- Example papers from venue
+- Editor/reviewer feedback on prior submissions
+
+**Common venue variations:**
+- Some require structured abstracts
+- Some allow/disallow first person
+- Page limits vs word limits
+- Supplementary materials policies
+</guidelines>
+
+<example>
+```markdown
+# Style Guide
+
+**Venue:** CHI 2025
+**Style:** ACM / APA-like
+**Created:** 2025-01-10
+
+## Formatting Requirements
+
+### Document Format
+- **Page limit:** 10 pages (excluding references)
+- **Font:** Use ACM template (default fonts)
+- **Margins:** Per ACM template
+- **Line spacing:** Per ACM template
+- **Template:** [ACM CHI 2025 template](https://chi2025.acm.org/authors/)
+
+### Section Requirements
+- Abstract: 150 words max, single paragraph
+- Keywords: 3-5 keywords, lowercase, semicolon-separated
+- Headings: Numbered (1., 1.1, 1.1.1), sentence case
+- Figures/Tables: Float to top/bottom, caption below figures, above tables
+- References: ACM reference format
+
+## Citation Style
+
+### In-Text Citations
+- Single author: Smith [23]
+- Two authors: Smith and Jones [23]
+- Three+ authors: Smith et al. [23]
+- Multiple citations: [23, 45, 67]
+- Direct quote: [23, p. 45]
+
+### Reference List
+- Format: ACM reference format
+- DOI: Required when available
+- URL format: Include access date
+
+## Writing Conventions
+
+### Voice and Tense
+- **Voice:** Active preferred
+- **Person:** First person plural "we"
+- **Tense:**
+  - Introduction: Present for facts, past for prior work
+  - Methods: Past tense
+  - Results: Past tense
+  - Discussion: Present for interpretation
+
+### Terminology
+- Use: "participants" not "subjects"
+- Use: "AI-assisted" not "AI-generated"
+- Avoid: "users" when meaning "participants"
+- Acronyms: Define on first use (e.g., "artificial intelligence (AI)")
+
+## Checklist Before Submission
+
+- [ ] 10 pages or fewer (excluding refs)
+- [ ] Abstract ≤ 150 words
+- [ ] 3-5 keywords
+- [ ] All figures/tables referenced in text
+- [ ] Accessibility: Alt text for figures
+- [ ] Anonymized for review
+
+---
+
+*Style guide for: AI-Assisted Writing Framework*
+*Venue: CHI 2025*
+```
+</example>

package/write-the-f-paper/templates/project-context/tools.md

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+# Writing Tools Configuration
+
+Template for `.planning/sources/tools.md` — configuration for writing tools and environments.
+
+**Purpose:** Document the tools, formats, and technical setup for this writing project.
+
+---
+
+## File Template
+
+```markdown
+# Writing Tools
+
+**Project:** [Paper/Grant title]
+**Created:** [date]
+
+## Output Format
+
+**Primary format:** [LaTeX / Markdown / Word]
+**Template:** [Venue template name/link]
+**Citation manager:** [Zotero / Mendeley / BibTeX / None]
+
+## File Locations
+
+**Manuscript:**
+- Main document: `paper/[filename].md` or `paper/[filename].tex`
+- Sections (if split): `paper/sections/`
+- References: `paper/references.bib`
+
+**Figures:**
+- Location: `paper/figures/`
+- Format: [PNG / PDF / SVG]
+- Naming: `fig-[N]-[description].[ext]`
+
+**Tables:**
+- Location: [Inline / `paper/tables/`]
+- Format: [LaTeX / Markdown]
+
+**Supplementary:**
+- Location: `paper/supplementary/`
+
+## Build/Compile
+
+**For LaTeX:**
+```bash
+# Compile command
+pdflatex paper.tex
+bibtex paper
+pdflatex paper.tex
+pdflatex paper.tex
+
+# Or with latexmk
+latexmk -pdf paper.tex
+```
+
+**For Markdown:**
+```bash
+# Convert to PDF (via Pandoc)
+pandoc paper.md -o paper.pdf --citeproc --bibliography=references.bib
+
+# Convert to Word
+pandoc paper.md -o paper.docx --citeproc --bibliography=references.bib
+```
+
+## Citation Format
+
+**Style:** [APA 7 / Chicago / IEEE / ACM]
+**CSL file:** [path to .csl if using Pandoc]
+
+**In-text format:**
+- Markdown: `[@smith2023]` or `@smith2023`
+- LaTeX: `\cite{smith2023}` or `\citep{smith2023}`
+
+**Reference format:**
+```bibtex
+@article{smith2023,
+  author = {Smith, John and Jones, Jane},
+  title = {Title of the Paper},
+  journal = {Journal Name},
+  year = {2023},
+  volume = {10},
+  number = {2},
+  pages = {100-120},
+  doi = {10.1234/example}
+}
+```
+
+## Word Count
+
+**Command for Markdown:**
+```bash
+# Excluding code blocks and front matter
+pandoc paper.md -t plain | wc -w
+```
+
+**Command for LaTeX:**
+```bash
+# Using texcount
+texcount paper.tex
+
+# Or detex + wc
+detex paper.tex | wc -w
+```
+
+## Verification Commands
+
+**Check citations:**
+```bash
+# Find uncited references
+grep -h "^@" references.bib | sed 's/@.*{//' | sed 's/,//' | while read key; do
+  grep -q "$key" paper.tex || echo "Uncited: $key"
+done
+
+# Find missing references
+grep -oh '\\cite{[^}]*}' paper.tex | sed 's/\\cite{//; s/}//' | tr ',' '\n' | while read key; do
+  grep -q "^@.*{$key," references.bib || echo "Missing: $key"
+done
+```
+
+**Grammar/style check:**
+- [Tool: Grammarly / LanguageTool / Vale]
+- [Configuration if applicable]
+
+## Collaboration
+
+**Version control:** [Git / None]
+**Sharing:** [Overleaf / Google Docs / Email]
+**Backup:** [Location/method]
+
+## Special Requirements
+
+[Any venue-specific technical requirements]
+
+---
+
+*Tools configuration for: [Paper title]*
+*Update when tools change*
+```
+
+<guidelines>
+
+**When to create:**
+- At project initialization
+- After selecting venue and format
+
+**Key sections:**
+- Output format and template
+- File organization
+- Build commands
+- Citation format
+- Word count methods
+- Verification commands
+
+**Format-specific notes:**
+
+**LaTeX projects:**
+- Include full compile sequence
+- Note any required packages
+- Document custom commands/macros
+
+**Markdown projects:**
+- Include Pandoc command with all options
+- Note CSL file for citation style
+- Document any extensions used
+
+**Collaboration:**
+- Note version control setup
+- Document sharing method
+- Include backup strategy
+</guidelines>

package/write-the-f-paper/templates/project.md

@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+# PROJECT.md Template
+
+Template for `.planning/PROJECT.md` — the living writing project context document.
+
+<template>
+
+```markdown
+# [Paper/Grant Title]
+
+## What This Is
+
+[Current accurate description — 2-3 sentences. What type of document is this (journal paper, conference paper, grant proposal)?
+What is the target venue? What is the core contribution? Update whenever scope drifts from this description.]
+
+## Core Argument
+
+[The ONE thesis statement that matters most. If everything else is forgotten, this claim must come through.
+One sentence that drives all writing decisions when tradeoffs arise.]
+
+## Requirements
+
+### Must Have
+
+<!-- Required elements that cannot be omitted. -->
+
+- [ ] [Required section or element]
+- [ ] [Page/word limit compliance]
+- [ ] [Specific formatting requirements]
+- [ ] [Required figures, tables, or data]
+
+### Should Have
+
+<!-- Desired elements that strengthen the paper but aren't strictly required. -->
+
+- [ ] [Desired element 1]
+- [ ] [Desired element 2]
+
+### Out of Scope
+
+<!-- Explicit boundaries. Includes reasoning to prevent scope creep. -->
+
+- [Not covering X] — [why]
+- [Excluding Y approach] — [why]
+
+## Target Audience
+
+[Who reads this? What do they already know? What do they care about?
+Consider primary reviewers, secondary readers, and citation audience.]
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Deadline**: [Submission date]
+- **Length**: [Word/page limit]
+- **Format**: [LaTeX template, journal style, etc.]
+- **Data**: [Available data, missing data, IRB constraints]
+- **Prior work**: [Related papers, prior drafts, dependencies]
+
+## Key Decisions
+
+<!-- Decisions that constrain future writing. Add throughout project lifecycle. -->
+
+| Decision | Rationale | Outcome |
+|----------|-----------|---------|
+| [Choice] | [Why] | [✓ Good / ⚠️ Revisit / — Pending] |
+
+---
+*Last updated: [date] after [trigger]*
+```
+
+</template>
+
+<guidelines>
+
+**What This Is:**
+- Current accurate description of the paper or grant
+- 2-3 sentences capturing document type, venue, and contribution
+- Use the writer's framing and language
+- Update when scope evolves beyond this description
+
+**Core Argument:**
+- The single thesis statement
+- Everything else can be cut; this cannot
+- Drives prioritization when word count is tight
+- Rarely changes; if it does, it's a significant reframing
+
+**Requirements — Must Have:**
+- Non-negotiable elements
+- Journal/conference requirements
+- Figures or data that are essential
+- Format: `- [ ] [Requirement]`
+
+**Requirements — Should Have:**
+- Elements that strengthen but aren't required
+- Move to Must Have if they become essential
+- Move to Out of Scope if they're cut
+
+**Requirements — Out of Scope:**
+- Explicit boundaries on what the paper is NOT about
+- Always include reasoning (prevents scope creep)
+- Includes: considered and rejected, deferred to future work, explicitly excluded
+
+**Target Audience:**
+- Who will review this? What's their expertise level?
+- Who will cite this? What problem are they solving?
+- What background can you assume vs. must explain?
+
+**Constraints:**
+- Hard limits on the writing
+- Deadline, page limit, format requirements
+- Data availability, IRB constraints, prior commitments
+- Include the "why" — constraints without rationale get questioned
+
+**Key Decisions:**
+- Significant choices that affect future writing
+- Add decisions as they're made throughout the project
+- Track outcome when known:
+  - ✓ Good — decision proved correct
+  - ⚠️ Revisit — decision may need reconsideration
+  - — Pending — too early to evaluate
+
+**Last Updated:**
+- Always note when and why the document was updated
+- Format: `after Section 2 draft` or `after reviewer feedback`
+- Triggers review of whether content is still accurate
+
+</guidelines>
+
+<evolution>
+
+PROJECT.md evolves throughout the writing lifecycle.
+
+**After each section completion:**
+1. Requirements invalidated? → Move to Out of Scope with reason
+2. Requirements validated? → Move to Must Have with section reference
+3. New requirements emerged? → Add to appropriate category
+4. Decisions to log? → Add to Key Decisions
+5. "What This Is" still accurate? → Update if drifted
+
+**After each revision cycle:**
+1. Full review of all sections
+2. Core Argument check — still the right thesis?
+3. Audit Out of Scope — reasons still valid?
+4. Update constraints (new deadline, changed limits)
+
+</evolution>
+
+<brownfield>
+
+For papers with existing drafts:
+
+1. **Map sources first** via `/wtfp:map-project`
+
+2. **Infer Must Have requirements** from existing writing:
+   - What sections already exist?
+   - What figures/data are available?
+   - What arguments are already made?
+
+3. **Gather additional requirements** from user:
+   - Present inferred current state
+   - Ask what they want to accomplish
+
+4. **Initialize:**
+   - Must Have = elements from existing drafts
+   - Should Have = user's goals for this revision
+   - Out of Scope = boundaries user specifies
+   - Constraints = includes prior draft state
+
+</brownfield>
+
+<state_reference>
+
+STATE.md references PROJECT.md:
+
+```markdown
+## Project Reference
+
+See: .planning/PROJECT.md (updated [date])
+
+**Core argument:** [One-liner from Core Argument section]
+**Current focus:** [Current section name]
+```
+
+This ensures Claude reads current PROJECT.md context.
+
+</state_reference>