Whitepaper
Author a long-form, authoritative whitepaper that makes a researched argument — a technical position paper, industry analysis, or thought-leadership piece with citations. Does the RESEARCH first to ground every claim, then locks a logical section outline and thesis, then writes the full long-form document with an abstract, numbered sections, evidence, figures, and a references list. Use when the deliverable must be credible, sourced, and substantial rather than a quick blog post.
Steps
Entry step: research. Each step names the specialist role it wants; the full working prompt is expandable.
- Researchresearcherentry
gather and cite the evidence the argument will rest on
Show working prompt
Ground the paper in evidence before any outline or prose. Step 1: restate the central question/thesis the whitepaper will argue. Step 2: gather the supporting material — use any available web/search/fetch tools, or the provided corpus — capturing for each finding a one-line claim, the source/citation, and a relevance note. Step 3: note counter-arguments and the strongest opposing evidence so the paper can address them honestly. Step 4: identify what data would make a useful figure or table and whether you have it. Step 5: write an evidence log (claim -> source -> note) and a research-criteria checklist ('thesis is stated', 'each major claim has at least one citable source', 'at least one counter-argument captured', 'sources are real and identified, not invented'). Write the evidence log + checklist via write_task_note AND to notes/research.md. Do NOT fabricate sources — if you cannot find support for a claim, mark it as an assumption to soften in the prose. - Outlineplanner
thesis + logical section flow mapped to the evidence
Show working prompt
Turn the evidence into a logical structure. Step 1: write the one-paragraph thesis the paper defends. Step 2: lay out the sections in argument order — abstract, introduction (problem + thesis), background/context, the core argument broken into 2-4 numbered sections, a section addressing counter-arguments, implications/recommendations, and a references section. Step 3: under each section list the evidence-log items (with their citations) that support it, so the writer knows exactly what to cite where. Step 4: mark where figures/tables belong. Step 5: write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('has an abstract that summarizes the whole argument', 'sections are numbered and flow logically to the thesis', 'a counter-argument section is present', 'every major claim cites a source from the evidence log', 'ends with a references list matching the in-text citations'). Write the outline (with evidence mapped per section) + checklist via write_task_note AND to notes/outline.md. No body prose yet. - Write the whitepapercopywriter
write the full long-form report.md with citations and references
Show working prompt
Write the full whitepaper as report.md in markdown. Step 1: open with an abstract (~150 words) that summarizes problem, argument, and conclusion so it stands alone. Step 2: write each numbered section in outlined order as substantive prose (this is long-form — paragraphs, not bullets), weaving in the mapped evidence and citing each major claim inline (e.g. [1], [2] or author-year) tied to the references list. Step 3: include the marked figures/tables (markdown tables or described figures) with captions referenced in the text. Step 4: write the counter-argument section honestly, then rebut or qualify it. Step 5: close with implications/recommendations, then a numbered References section listing every cited source. Keep an authoritative, measured voice; do not introduce claims that lack support in the evidence log. On a loop-back, fix ONLY the named gaps. Write the path + section/citation counts via write_task_note.
- Evaluatereviewer
Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap.
Show working prompt
QA the whitepaper against the locked criteria. Step 1: read report.md end to end. Step 2: confirm the abstract stands alone and summarizes the full argument. Step 3: check EACH acceptance criterion: sections are numbered and flow logically to the thesis, a counter-argument section is present and addressed, every major claim carries an inline citation, and a References section lists every cited source with no orphan or dangling citations. Step 4: spot-check 2-3 citations against the evidence log and confirm no sources were fabricated. Step 5: confirm it reads as substantive long-form prose, not padded bullets. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion, noting the offending section on any FAIL. Then route — this is the whole point of the loop: - **Every criterion PASSES →** call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: "evaluate", next: "finish" })`. - **Any criterion FAILS →** write the specific gaps to notes, then call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: "evaluate", next: "write" })` to loop back. The builder fixes exactly those gaps. Never route to `finish` while any criterion is unmet. The build phase's completion gate already blocked a grossly-incomplete deliverable; your job is the judgment an automated check cannot make (does it actually work, read well, look right). After ~3 unproductive loops, stop and report DONE_WITH_CONCERNS so the user can step in. - Finishdeveloper
All acceptance criteria met. Stamp a short summary and report DONE.
Show working prompt
Every acceptance criterion passed. Write a one-paragraph DONE summary to task notes via `write_task_note`: what was built, the deliverable path(s), and a one-line confirmation that each criterion is met. Then report DONE.
Triggers
Phrases that suggest this craftbook to a crew.
- write a whitepaper
- white paper
- position paper
- thought leadership piece
- technical paper
- long form report with citations
Source
View this craftbook on GitHub · MIT license