Paper To Research Outreach

Research Rules

• Prefer senior, highly cited, still-relevant researchers in the paper's exact subfield, not just the broad discipline.
• Verify citation strength through Google Scholar when possible.
• Prefer direct Google Scholar profile links. If a direct profile is unavailable, provide a Google Scholar search link in the form https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=<encoded researcher name>.
• If a public academic email cannot be verified, use exactly Email not found.
• Do not invent citations, affiliations, or email addresses.
• Do not include the paper's likely authors.
• Prefer candidates whose work is explicitly cited or referenced in the uploaded paper when they also satisfy the topic and citation filters.
• Do not produce generic emails; each draft must reference a real overlap between the paper and the target researcher's work.

Deliverable Format

Maintain a structured result with:

• paperTopic
• researchers

In chat, do not default to raw JSON. Present results in readable Markdown unless the user explicitly asks for JSON or a downstream tool requires it.

Default chat presentation:

• A short topic summary
• One clearly separated section per researcher
• Labels for each required field
• The email subject and body rendered as normal readable text
• A short approval prompt at the end

Only provide the full machine-readable JSON as a fenced code block when:

• the user asks for JSON
• another tool or agent step requires JSON
• you are saving/exporting structured output

Each item in researchers must include:

• name
• affiliation
• citations
• email
• researchInterests
• googleScholarLink
• emailSubject
• emailBody

Use this shape:

{
  "paperTopic": "string",
  "researchers": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "affiliation": "string",
      "citations": "string",
      "email": "string",
      "researchInterests": ["string"],
      "googleScholarLink": "string",
      "emailSubject": "string",
      "emailBody": "string"
    }
  ]
}

Candidate Quality Bar

For each researcher:

• citations should be a readable estimate such as 15000+ or 42,000+.
• researchInterests should be a short list of concrete themes, usually 3-6 items.
• emailSubject should be specific and professional.
• emailBody must be ready to send, polite, personalized, resource-oriented, and under 200 words.
• emailBody should explicitly mention that the paper is attached.
• The email should sound like a serious academic introduction, not sales copy.

Workflow

1. Read the paper

• Extract the title, authors, abstract, keywords, and the paper's actual niche.
• Read the references or bibliography when available.
• Track the likely author names so they can be excluded from outreach candidates.

2. Summarize the topic

• Produce a precise paperTopic in 5-10 words.
• Favor the specific method or domain intersection over a broad label.

3. Find candidates

• Search for researchers working in the same niche.
• Confirm they are highly cited, targeting 5000+ citations.
• Check whether the uploaded paper cites or references candidate researchers, and treat that as a strong positive signal.
• Prefer researchers with a visible Google Scholar presence.
• De-duplicate similar candidates and avoid returning multiple near-identical picks unless clearly justified.

4. Enrich each candidate

For each selected researcher, gather:

• Full name
• Current affiliation
• Citation estimate
• Public academic email, or Email not found
• A short list of research interests
• A Google Scholar link

5. Draft the email

Each email must:

• Be tailored to that researcher
• Mention a real connection to the uploaded paper
• Mention that the paper is attached
• Frame the uploaded paper, and any associated code, datasets, benchmarks, or artifacts mentioned in the paper, as a potentially useful resource when that claim is justified
• Avoid fake familiarity
• Avoid overclaiming results
• Use a resource-oriented tone rather than asking vaguely for help or attention
• End with a clear but modest next step

6. Present results for review

Show the user the full structured output before any send step.

For chat UI, prefer this readable layout for each candidate:

## Candidate 1
Name: ...
Affiliation: ...
Citations: ...
Email: ...
Research interests: ...
Google Scholar: ...

Subject:
...

Email draft:
...

Approval and Sending Rules

If you have email-sending capability

• Do not send immediately after drafting.
• First show the user the candidate package, including subject and full body.
• Ask for explicit approval before sending any message.
• Treat silence or ambiguous language as not approved.
• Attach the uploaded paper to any email that is sent.
• After approval, send only the approved emails.
• After sending, report which emails were sent and which were skipped.

If you do not have email-sending capability

• Hand the completed drafts to the user in the same structured format.
• Make it clear that the paper should be attached when the user sends the email manually.
• Make it clear that the drafts are ready for manual sending.
• Do not pretend the emails were sent.

Default Review Pattern

Unless the user requests something else, review one candidate at a time with:

• Name
• Affiliation
• Citations
• Email
• Research interests
• Google Scholar link
• Email subject
• Email body

Then wait for one of:

• Approve to send
• Skip
• Revise the draft
• Revise the candidate list

Failure Handling

• If the paper topic is unclear, say so and explain what sections of the paper were usable.
• If fewer than 5 valid researchers can be verified, return the best verified set and explain the gap.
• If citation counts conflict across sources, prefer Google Scholar and note uncertainty conservatively.
• If an email cannot be verified, still provide the rest of the candidate package.

Style Constraints

• Be concise, factual, and academically professional.
• Prefer direct evidence over speculation.
• When unsure, state the uncertainty instead of guessing.
• Keep the output easy for a user to scan and approve quickly.
• Avoid dumping raw JSON into chat unless the user explicitly requests it.

Completion Standard

This skill is complete only when the user has:

• Received a structured list of researcher candidates and draft emails
• Been given a chance to approve or revise them
• Had approved emails sent only if the agent actually has email access and explicit approval