<< All versions

Skill v1.0.1

currentAutomated scan100/100
pixelastic/oroshi/cfp-writer

+6 new

──Details
PublishedAugust 28, 2026 at 07:49 AM
Content Hashsha256:507d90760923e8d4...
Git SHA4f8cd8eeb81b
Bump Typepatch
Compare with v1.0.0
──Files
Files (1 file, 5.1 KB)
SKILL.md5.1 KBactive
SKILL.md · 135 lines · 5.1 KB

version: "1.0.1" name: cfp-writer description: Use when user needs to write or review a Call for Paper, submit a talk proposal, or transform existing content into conference-ready format. Crafts compelling CFP submissions (title, abstract, takeaways) and reviews existing drafts with voice preservation.


CFP Writer

Overview

Transform talk materials into conference-ready CFP submissions. Two modes: create (new CFP from materials) and review (improve an existing draft while preserving the speaker's voice).

Utilities

`cfp-writer-tick <draftPath>` — Call whenever output is displayed to the user, across all steps. Not tied to any single step. The draft file contains whatever the user asked to see — title only, abstract only, or full submission.

Core Workflow

Step 1 — Mode detection

Goal: Determine whether this is a create or review session.

Exit criterion: Mode stated to user.

Read the user's input. Two modes:

  • Review — user has an existing CFP draft (theirs or a colleague's) that needs improvement
  • Create — user has materials (slides, outline, idea) and needs a new CFP

State the detected mode: "Mode: create" or "Mode: review".

Step 2 — Gather

Goal: Understand the talk content, constraints, and existing quality.

Exit criterion: Talk essence extracted, constraints known.

  1. Ask what the user has — slides, outline, idea, existing draft, colleague's draft. If file path provided, read it directly.
  1. Ask for CFP constraints — target conference, language (French or English), word limits, specific themes.
  1. Extract talk essence — main problem, key technical concepts, audience level, unique angle, real examples or outcomes.
  1. Read `EXAMPLES.md` for inspiration on structure, tone, and specificity.
  1. If review mode: Analyze the existing draft critically — hook strength,

structure clarity, concrete examples, named technologies, buzzwords, value proposition.

Step 3 — Title

Goal: Create a compelling, clear title

Exit criterion: User selects or refines a title.

Read references/title-patterns.md. Generate 3-5 title options using the proven patterns. Iterate until user selects.

Step 4 — Abstract

Goal: Write a ~250-word abstract with key takeaways.

Exit criterion: User approves abstract and takeaways.

Read references/abstract-structure.md. Write the abstract using the four-part structure (Hook → Context → Content → Takeaway). Generate 3-5 key takeaways.

If review mode: Read references/voice-preservation.md. Restructure and reorder freely, but do not rewrite sentences that already work.

Step 5 — Review

Goal: Verify quality and iterate until user approves.

Exit criterion: User approves the final output.

  1. Write draft to `draftPath`.
  1. Run prose linting:

`` prose-lint --profile cfp-writer <draftPath> ` Zero errors required. Warnings addressed as best effort. Fix draftPath`, re-lint, repeat until clean.

  1. Run verification checklist:
  • [ ] Title is under word limit and uses a proven pattern
  • [ ] Abstract follows Hook → Context → Content → Takeaway structure
  • [ ] Abstract is within word count (~250 words, or specified limit)
  • [ ] Abstract includes concrete examples or numbers
  • [ ] Takeaways are specific, actionable, start with verbs
  • [ ] Tone is professional but accessible
  • [ ] Content accurately represents the actual talk
  1. Present final output and ask user: approve or request edits.
  • If edits requested → loop back to the relevant step.
  • If approved → move to Step 6.

Step 6 — Self-improvement

Goal: Capture strong patterns for future sessions.

Exit criterion: User asked, examples updated or skipped.

Reflect on the session. If a strong pattern emerged (effective hook, novel structure, compelling before/after transformation):

Ask the user whether to add it to EXAMPLES.md. Do not append without explicit approval.

If approved, add to the appropriate section:

  • Standalone — for new reference examples
  • Before / After — for transformation pairs from review sessions

Common Rationalizations

RationalizationReality
"I don't need to follow Hook → Context → Content → Takeaway"This structure is validated across thousands of successful CFPs. Skipping it gets rejected.
"I'll rewrite this sentence to sound better"In review mode, preserve the speaker's phrasing. Don't rewrite sentences that already work.

Checklist

  • [ ] Mode detected and stated (create or review)
  • [ ] EXAMPLES.md read for inspiration
  • [ ] Talk essence extracted, constraints known
  • [ ] At least 3 title options generated
  • [ ] Abstract follows Hook → Context → Content → Takeaway
  • [ ] Voice-preservation rules applied (review mode)
  • [ ] Draft written to draftPath
  • [ ] prose-lint --profile cfp-writer returns zero errors
  • [ ] cfp-writer-tick <draftPath> called when output displayed
  • [ ] Verification checklist completed
  • [ ] User asked whether to add patterns to EXAMPLES.md
← v1.0.0All versions