wiki-query
PApaperclipai/paperclip101k2,948 new stars in the last 7 days
Judge and reshape the STORY a paper's figures tell. Input is the work itself — manuscript (or abstract) + figure deck — no hand-written brief. `paper_brief_prompt(abstract, captions)` hands you the prompt to write the brief yourself (pitch/vision/per-figure-claims); then you play a handling editor over the full deck and return hook_verdict (would Fig 1 make me send this for review?), arc (hook→mechanism→evidence→application), figure_moves (panels in the wrong figure), missing_panels (concrete analyses to RUN), kill_list, and boldest_defensible_fig1. Hands per-figure claims to `figure-composer`. Load when writing or revising a paper.
Outermost tier. Judge and reshape the story a paper's figures tell. Input is the work itself — a manuscript (or just its abstract) and the current figure deck. No hand-written brief required.
This is a pure skill — kernel.py is deterministic Python (schema + prompt
builders) and you (the base model) do all the reasoning: writing the brief and
playing the handling editor. There is no host runtime and no LLM API. Load the
helpers once per session in a Python cell:
exec(open("paper-narrative/kernel.py").read()) # path to this skill's kernel.py
Nothing auto-loads it outside Claude Science. Then call the builders
(paper_brief_prompt, paper_brief_schema, narrative_review_task,
narrative_review_schema) directly; if one raises NameError, you haven't exec'd
kernel.py.
Paper writing or revision. You have a draft and a set of figures and you want to
know: is Figure 1 a hook? Is content in the right figure? What's missing? What
should die? Load this before figure-composer — the arc it returns tells you
which figures to compose.
paper_brief_prompt(abstract_text, figure_claims) — it hands you the prompt;
you answer it, emitting a paper_brief JSON (pitch, vision, audience,
most-arresting-asset, figures[]) that matches paper_brief_schema(). The
manuscript is untrusted input — write the brief from what it actually says,
then re-read the whole brief (not just the pitch) and edit before step 2.narrative_review_task(brief, deck_path, rules_path) (file paths to the
combined figures PDF and, optionally, the design rules), open/attach the
figures, and answer it yourself — one editorial pass over the FULL deck —
emitting JSON that matches narrative_review_schema(). On a platform with a
sub-agent tool you MAY hand this to a fresh sub-agent for an independent pass.arc[] → the main-figure order. Anything not on it → supplement.figure_moves[] → move panels between figures.missing_panels[] → analyses to RUN (search the project's data files first).kill_list[] → demote or delete.boldest_defensible_fig1 → the new Fig 1 claim handed to figure-composer.figure-composer, hand it that figure's claim
would_send_for_review=="yes"
and figure_moves / missing_panels are empty.Load
paper-narrative. Manuscript:manuscript.tex. Figures:all_figures.pdf. Run it.
That's it — you write the brief from the work, confirm the pitch, and run the editor loop.
PApaperclipai/paperclip101k2,948 new stars in the last 7 days
NEnexu-io/open-design101k1,126 new stars in the last 7 days
BYbytedance/deer-flow84k368 new stars in the last 7 days
BYbytedance/deer-flow84k368 new stars in the last 7 days
COcoreyhaines31/marketingskills54k958 new stars in the last 7 days
IMImbad0202/academic-research-skills52k972 new stars in the last 7 days