Status: v3.2 Source: Lu et al. (2026, Nature 651:914-919) Figure 1c — template-based mode produces higher-quality, lower-variance papers; template-free mode produces more diverse outputs but lower mean quality and higher variance. ARS maps this finding onto its own mode taxonomy.
Not all modes should treat templates and examples the same way. A systematic-review needs rigid structure (PRISMA checklist, predefined sections) — templates are load-bearing. A socratic dialogue needs room to wander — heavy templates kill exploration.
Lu et al.'s template-based vs template-free comparison gives us a language for this trade-off: fidelity (reproducible, template-heavy, lower variance) vs originality (exploratory, template-light, higher variance, higher ceiling on novelty).
ARS modes fall on a spectrum between these poles. This table is the reference for decisions about: - How much template/example material to load at mode start - Whether to inline templates in SKILL.md or load from sub-files on demand (v3.1 Phase 3) - Whether to suggest the mode when the user's goal is "predictable output" vs "creative exploration"
| Skill | Mode | Spectrum position | Template load | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deep-research | systematic-review |
Fidelity | Heavy | PRISMA protocol, predefined search strategy, reproducible steps |
| deep-research | lit-review |
Fidelity | Heavy | Structured annotated bibliography, fixed output format |
| deep-research | three-way-scan |
Fidelity | Medium | Fixed WHY/HOW/WHAT per-paper frame + cross-paper synthesis, lighter than lit-review |
| deep-research | fact-check |
Fidelity | Heavy | Claim → evidence → verdict pipeline, no room for drift |
| deep-research | quick |
Fidelity | Heavy | Time-boxed brief, fixed 3-section format |
| deep-research | review |
Balanced | Medium | Review has structure but allows domain-specific adaptation |
| deep-research | full |
Balanced | Medium | Structured output but methodology selection is exploratory |
| deep-research | socratic |
Originality | Light | User-led dialogue, templates constrain exploration |
| academic-paper | full |
Balanced | Medium | Section templates loaded, but writing adapts to argument |
| academic-paper | outline-only |
Balanced | Medium | Structure templates needed, but outline is creative |
| academic-paper | revision |
Fidelity | Heavy | R&R tracking template, point-by-point responses |
| academic-paper | revision-coach |
Balanced | Medium | Coaching is semi-structured; roadmap template loaded |
| academic-paper | abstract-only |
Fidelity | Heavy | Fixed abstract structure (background/method/results/conclusion) |
| academic-paper | lit-review |
Fidelity | Heavy | Annotated bibliography format |
| academic-paper | format-convert |
Fidelity | Heavy | Format conversion is purely mechanical |
| academic-paper | citation-check |
Fidelity | Heavy | Citation audit is checklist-driven |
| academic-paper | plan |
Originality | Light | Socratic planning dialogue, no forced chapter sequence |
| academic-paper | disclosure (v3.2) |
Fidelity | Heavy | Venue policy database → templated output |
| academic-paper | rebuttal-audit |
Fidelity | Heavy | Per-comment coverage checklist against an existing rebuttal draft, advisory QA |
| academic-paper-reviewer | full |
Balanced | Medium | Review rubric loaded, but reviewer perspectives are dynamic |
| academic-paper-reviewer | re-review |
Fidelity | Heavy | R&R traceability matrix, checklist-driven |
| academic-paper-reviewer | quick |
Fidelity | Heavy | Fixed EIC quick-assessment format |
| academic-paper-reviewer | methodology-focus |
Fidelity | Heavy | Focused on statistical/methods rubric |
| academic-paper-reviewer | guided |
Originality | Light | Socratic dialogue, adaptive to what the user needs |
| academic-paper-reviewer | calibration (v3.2) |
Fidelity | Heavy | Fixed 5x ensembling protocol, no creative adaptation |