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.
69
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
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.pyNothing 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.
f618458
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.