paper-illustration-image2
Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Generate publication-quality academic illustrations through a local Codex app-server bridge that uses Codex native image generation. This is a separate experimental alternative to `paper-illustration`, intended for Claude Code users who want a GPT-image-style renderer without modifying the original skill.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
25 rules. About 0 are common, 17 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈17
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
8
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 162
Create figures/ai_generated/ if it does not exist.
- Distinctive: line 167
Prefer English figure text unless the user asked otherwise.
- Very specific: line 176
If preflight is not ok=true, stop and say so clearly.
- Distinctive: line 190
When the input is a method note or a paper section, summarize it first into a clean figure brief before writing the final image prompt.
- Very specific: line 203
If mcp__codex__codex is available, you may ask it for a short second-opinion layout critique here, but Claude should still complete this …
- Distinctive: line 207
Use Codex layout critique for:
- Distinctive: line 223
no glow, rainbow gradient, or slide-deck decoration slips in
- Very specific: line 225
If mcp__codex__codex is available, you may ask it for a short text-only style audit, but do not block on it.
- Distinctive: line 243
If generation fails, report the bridge error directly instead of hiding it.
- Distinctive: line 252
do arrows point the right way?
- Distinctive: line 259
If score < 9, write a targeted refinement prompt:
- Distinctive: line 265
Keep refinement feedback concrete:
- Very specific: line 275
run the canonical helper to promote the best image to figure_final.png
- Distinctive: line 278
run helper verification before claiming success
- Distinctive: line 305
Never skip Step 2 or Step 3.
- Distinctive: line 306
Never skip the final visual review.
- Distinctive: line 307
Never accept a figure that is logically wrong just because it looks attractive.
- Very specific: line 308
Use the codex-image2 bridge only for native image generation.
- Distinctive: line 309
If the bridge says native image generation is unavailable, surface that honestly.
- Distinctive: line 311
Keep figure text in English unless the user requested another language.
- Distinctive: line 312
Prefer 1-3 strong refinement rounds over many shallow ones.
- Distinctive: line 313
Use specific, actionable refinement feedback instead of vague comments.
- Very specific: line 316
Always use tools/paper_illustration_image2.py finalize to emit the final artifacts.
- Very specific: line 317
Always use tools/paper_illustration_image2.py verify before claiming success.
- Distinctive: line 321
If rendering succeeded but final artifacts were skipped, repair the integration explicitly:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Paper Illustration Image2
Generate publication-quality paper figures using Claude as the planner/reviewer and a local Codex app-server MCP bridge as the raster renderer.
Core Design Philosophy
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ MULTI-STAGE ITERATIVE WORKFLOW │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ User Request │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │ Claude │ ◄─── Step 1: Parse request, create initial prompt │
│ │ (Planner) │ - Extract components, labels, and data flow │
│ │ │ - Write a paper-ready figure brief │
│ └──────┬──────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │Claude/Codex │ ◄─── Step 2: Optimize layout description │
│ │ Layout │ - Refine component positioning │
│ │ Review │ - Optimize spacing and grouping │
│ └──────┬──────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │Claude/Codex │ ◄─── Step 3: CVPR/NeurIPS style verification │
│ │ Style │ - Check palette, arrows, and label standards │
│ │ Check │ - Tighten the prompt before rendering │
│ └──────┬──────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │ codex-image2│ ◄─── Step 4: Native image generation via bridge │
│ │ MCP bridge │ - Call generate_start / generate_status │
│ │ + app-server│ - Accept only native imageGeneration output │
│ └──────┬──────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │ Claude │ ◄─── Step 5: STRICT visual review + SCORE (1-10) │
│ │ (Reviewer) │ - Verify logic, labels, arrows, and aesthetics │
│ │ STRICT! │ - Reject unclear or non-paper-ready figures │
│ └──────┬──────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ Score ≥ 9? ──YES──► Accept & Output │
│ │ │
│ NO │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ Generate SPECIFIC improvement feedback ──► Loop back to Step 2 │
│ │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Constants
- RENDERER =
codex-image2— Native image generation bridge exposed through local Codex app-server - OPTIONAL_TEXT_CRITIC =
mcp__codex__codex— Optional text-only second opinion for layout/style checks - MAX_ITERATIONS = 5 — Maximum refinement rounds
- TARGET_SCORE = 9 — Minimum acceptable score (1-10)
- OUTPUT_DIR =
figures/ai_generated/— Output directory - TEXT_LANGUAGE =
English— Default figure text language unless the user requests otherwise - NATIVE_IMAGE_REQUIREMENT =
strict— Accept only nativeimageGenerationoutput; reject shell/Python fallbacks - CANONICAL_HELPER =
python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py— Preflight, finalize, verify, and repair path for this integration
CVPR/ICLR/NeurIPS Top-Tier Conference Style Guide
What "CVPR Style" Actually Means:
Visual Standards
- Clean white background — No decorative patterns or gradients unless extremely subtle
- Sans-serif fonts — Arial, Helvetica, or similarly clean paper-friendly typography
- Subtle color palette — Use 3-5 coordinated colors, not rainbow colors
- Print-friendly — Must remain understandable in grayscale
- Professional borders — Thin to medium, clean, and consistent
Layout Standards
- Horizontal flow — Left-to-right is the default for pipelines
- Clear grouping — Use spacing or subtle grouping boxes for related modules
- Consistent sizing — Similar components should have similar sizes
- Balanced whitespace — Avoid both cramped and overly sparse layouts
Arrow Standards (MOST CRITICAL)
- Thick strokes — Arrows must remain visible after paper scaling
- Clear arrowheads — Large, unmistakable arrowheads
- Dark colors — Prefer black or dark gray arrows
- Labeled — Important arrows should show what flows through them
- No crossings — Reorganize the figure to avoid crossings where possible
- CORRECT DIRECTION — Arrows must point to the right target
Visual Appeal (Academic Professional Style)
目标:既不保守也不花哨,找到平衡点
✅ Should have
- Subtle gradients — Gentle same-family gradients are acceptable
- Rounded corners — Modern but restrained rounded blocks
- Clear hierarchy — Main modules larger, secondary modules smaller
- Consistent color coding — Stable mapping between module types and colors
- Professional typography — Clean labels with readable size hierarchy
❌ Avoid
- ❌ Rainbow gradients
- ❌ Heavy drop shadows
- ❌ 3D perspective effects
- ❌ Glowing effects
- ❌ Decorative clip-art icons
- ❌ Slide-deck styling that feels flashy rather than paper-ready
✓ Ideal effect
- Looks intentional, professional, and immediately readable
- Has moderate visual appeal without becoming decorative
- Feels appropriate for a top-tier conference paper figure
- Survives PDF scaling and grayscale printing
What to AVOID (CRITICAL)
- ❌ Thin, hairline arrows
- ❌ Unlabeled or ambiguous connections
- ❌ Tiny unreadable text
- ❌ Flat, boring box soup with no hierarchy
- ❌ Over-decorated figures with shadows/glows/icons
- ❌ Wrong arrow directions
Scope
| Figure Type | Quality | Examples |
| Architecture diagrams | Excellent | Model architecture, pipeline, encoder-decoder |
| Method illustrations | Excellent | Conceptual diagrams, algorithm flowcharts |
| Conceptual figures | Good | Comparison diagrams, taxonomy trees |
Not for: Statistical plots (use /paper-figure), deterministic vector topology figures (prefer /figure-spec), photo-realistic scenes
Workflow: MUST EXECUTE ALL STEPS
Step 0: Pre-flight Check
Render this checklist explicitly before starting:
📋 paper-illustration-image2 integration checklist:
[ ] 1. python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py preflight --workspace <cwd> --json-out figures/ai_generated/preflight.json
[ ] 2. Confirm preflight JSON says ok=true before rendering
[ ] 3. Render via mcp__codex-image2__generate_start + generate_status
[ ] 4. Finalize via python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py finalize --workspace <cwd> --best-image <best_png>
[ ] 5. Verify artifacts via python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py verify --workspace <cwd> --json-out figures/ai_generated/verify.json- Create
figures/ai_generated/if it does not exist. - Confirm the request is suitable for a raster illustration:
- architecture diagram
- conceptual method figure
- workflow illustration
- Prefer English figure text unless the user asked otherwise.
- Run:
python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py preflight \
--workspace <cwd> \
--json-out figures/ai_generated/preflight.json- If preflight is not
ok=true, stop and say so clearly.
Step 1: Claude Plans the Figure
Turn the user request into a fully specified image prompt. Include:
- figure type
- exact modules / stages
- flow direction
- labels to show
- data-flow arrows
- style constraints
- what to avoid
When the input is a method note or a paper section, summarize it first into a clean figure brief before writing the final image prompt.
Step 2: Layout Optimization
This step is required. Before rendering, refine the prompt into a concrete layout plan:
- exact module order
- spacing and grouping
- relative module prominence
- arrow routing and likely collision points
If mcp__codex__codex is available, you may ask it for a short second-opinion
layout critique here, but Claude should still complete this step even without
Codex.
Use Codex layout critique for:
- missing components
- confusing layout
- weak flow hierarchy
- likely arrow-direction ambiguity or clutter
Step 3: Style Verification
This step is also required. Check the prompt against the intended paper style before rendering:
- palette is restrained and academic
- arrows are thick, dark, and readable
- labels are concise and in English unless requested otherwise
- the figure will read clearly in grayscale / print
- no glow, rainbow gradient, or slide-deck decoration slips in
If mcp__codex__codex is available, you may ask it for a short text-only
style audit, but do not block on it.
Step 4: Generate Through the Bridge
Call mcp__codex-image2__generate_start with:
prompt: the final image promptcwd: current project root or paper workspaceoutputPath:figures/ai_generated/figure_v1.pngsystem: a short instruction likeAcademic paper figure. Prefer crisp English labels.timeoutSeconds: a bounded render timeout such as180
Then call mcp__codex-image2__generate_status with bounded waits until:
done=trueandstatus=completed, ordone=trueandstatus=failed
If generation fails, report the bridge error directly instead of hiding it.
Step 5: Review the Output
Review the generated image with a strict checklist:
- are all major components present?
- is the logical flow obvious?
- are labels readable?
- do arrows point the right way?
- does the figure look paper-ready rather than like a slide?
Score it from 1-10.
Step 6: Refine if Needed
If score < 9, write a targeted refinement prompt:
- say exactly what was wrong
- say what to preserve
- regenerate to
figure_v2.png,figure_v3.png, etc.
Keep refinement feedback concrete:
Increase spacing between genome scan and scoring modulesMake the off-target branch thinner and secondaryUse cleaner English labels: "Candidate sgRNA library", not "sgRNA library 23 bp"
Step 7: Finalize And Verify
When accepted:
- run the canonical helper to promote the best image to
figure_final.png - let the helper write
latex_include.tex - let the helper write
review_log.json - run helper verification before claiming success
python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py finalize \
--workspace <cwd> \
--best-image figures/ai_generated/figure_vN.png \
--score 9 \
--review-summary "Accepted after strict review; labels and arrows are paper-ready."
python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py verify \
--workspace <cwd> \
--json-out figures/ai_generated/verify.jsonSuggested LaTeX:
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{figures/ai_generated/figure_final.png}
\caption{[Replace with a paper-ready caption].}
\label{fig:[replace-me]}
\end{figure*}Key Rules
- Never skip Step 2 or Step 3; layout and style checks are required.
- Never skip the final visual review.
- Never accept a figure that is logically wrong just because it looks attractive.
- Use the
codex-image2bridge only for native image generation. - If the bridge says native image generation is unavailable, surface that honestly.
- Reject any shell/Python/manual bitmap fallback masquerading as image generation.
- Keep figure text in English unless the user requested another language.
- Prefer 1-3 strong refinement rounds over many shallow ones.
- Use specific, actionable refinement feedback instead of vague comments.
- Review arrow direction, label clarity, and visual hierarchy every round.
- Accept only figures that look paper-ready, not slide-ready.
- Always use
tools/paper_illustration_image2.py finalizeto emit the final artifacts. - Always use
tools/paper_illustration_image2.py verifybefore claiming success.
Repair Path
If rendering succeeded but final artifacts were skipped, repair the integration explicitly:
python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py finalize \
--workspace <cwd> \
--best-image figures/ai_generated/figure_vN.png
python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py verify \
--workspace <cwd> \
--json-out figures/ai_generated/verify.jsonOutput Structure
figures/ai_generated/
├── preflight.json # Helper preflight receipt
├── figure_v1.png # Iteration 1
├── figure_v2.png # Iteration 2
├── figure_v3.png # Iteration 3
├── figure_final.png # Accepted version (copy of best, score ≥ 9)
├── latex_include.tex # LaTeX snippet
├── review_log.json # Review notes and refinement history
└── verify.json # Helper verification diagnosticModel Summary
| Stage | Agent / Tool | Purpose |
| Step 0 | python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py preflight | Observable activation predicate and preflight receipt |
| Step 1 | Claude | Parse request and create the initial figure prompt |
| Step 2 | Claude (+ optional Codex critique) | Refine layout, grouping, spacing, and arrow routing |
| Step 3 | Claude (+ optional Codex critique) | Verify academic visual style before rendering |
| Step 4 | mcp__codex-image2__generate_start + generate_status | Native raster image generation through Codex app-server |
| Step 5 | Claude | Strict visual review and scoring |
| Step 7 | python3 tools/paper_illustration_image2.py finalize + verify | Emit canonical artifacts and external verification receipt |
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 2
- wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep★ 18k75% same
- yvesory/academic-research-suite★ 980% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository84 other files it gives its agents.
- skills/rules/common/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/rules/zh/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- ablation-plannerSkill
- alphaxivSkill
- analyze-resultsSkill
- arxivSkill
- auto-paper-improvement-loopSkill
- auto-review-loop-llmSkill
- auto-review-loop-minimaxSkill
- auto-review-loopSkill
- citation-auditSkill
- claims-draftingSkill
- comm-lit-review-claude-singleSkill
- deepxivSkill
- dse-loopSkill
- embodiment-descriptionSkill
- exa-searchSkill
- experiment-auditSkill
- experiment-bridgeSkill
- experiment-planSkill
- experiment-queueSkill
- feishu-notifySkill
- figure-descriptionSkill
- figure-specSkill
- formula-derivationSkill
- gemini-searchSkill
- grant-proposalSkill
- idea-creatorSkill
- idea-discovery-robotSkill
- idea-discoverySkill
- invention-structuringSkill
- jurisdiction-formatSkill
- kill-argumentSkill
- mermaid-diagramSkill
- meta-optimizeSkill
- monitor-experimentSkill
- novelty-checkSkill
- openalexSkill
- overleaf-syncSkill
- paper-claim-auditSkill
- paper-compileSkill
- paper-figureSkill
- paper-illustrationSkill
- paper-planSkill
- paper-posterSkill
- paper-slidesSkill
- paper-talkSkill
- paper-writeSkill
- paper-writingSkill
- patent-novelty-checkSkill
- patent-pipelineSkill
- patent-reviewSkill
- pixel-artSkill
- prior-art-searchSkill
- proof-checkerSkill
- proof-writerSkill
- qzcliSkill
- rebuttalSkill
- research-litSkill
- research-pipelineSkill
- The first 60 shown.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

