---
name: arxiv-to-contextjamming-explainer-prompt
description: Transform an arXiv research paper into a complete, copy-paste-ready Codex implementation prompt for a Context Jamming interactive explainer page modeled on the /kinematic scaffold. Use when the user supplies an arXiv PDF, paper URL, manuscript, or research notes and wants a rigorous Quanta-style interactive explainer added to contextjamming.com.
---

# arXiv → Context Jamming Interactive Explainer Prompt

## Purpose

Turn a research paper into a **paper-specific Codex build prompt** for a production-quality interactive explainer page on Context Jamming.

The target is not a generic article, landing page, paper summary, or collection of decorative charts. The target is an editorial research instrument modeled on the design and reasoning grammar of:

- `https://www.contextjamming.com/kinematic`
- the checked-in `/kinematic` route and its client interactives
- the current Context Jamming Next.js design system

The final output of this skill is a single, fully specified prompt that the user can paste into Codex. Codex should be able to implement the page without inventing the scientific argument, page architecture, interaction concepts, or acceptance criteria.

## Trigger Conditions

Use this skill when the user asks for language such as:

- “Turn this arXiv paper into an explainer like kinematic.”
- “Generate a Codex prompt for an interactive paper explainer.”
- “Use the kinematic page as the scaffold.”
- “Make a Context Jamming page for this research paper.”
- “Explain this paper to a smart non-PhD audience with interactive diagrams.”

Do not use this skill when the user merely wants:

- a paper summary;
- peer-review comments;
- a static infographic;
- a slide deck;
- a literature review;
- direct implementation without first producing a Codex prompt.

## Required Inputs

At least one source-paper input is required:

- arXiv PDF;
- arXiv URL or identifier;
- publisher PDF;
- manuscript text;
- sufficiently complete paper notes.

Use these inputs when available:

- desired route slug;
- desired public-facing title;
- existing Context Jamming repository or scaffold ZIP;
- related Context Jamming pages;
- user-specified LLM, physics, biology, safety, or market bridge;
- implementation constraints.

If the user does not provide a slug, derive a concise lowercase route from the paper’s central concept. Avoid author names unless the concept cannot be named cleanly.

## Non-Negotiable Standard

The result must preserve three distinct epistemic layers:

1. **What the paper demonstrates or derives**
2. **What the authors propose, interpret, or speculate**
3. **What Context Jamming adds as a cross-domain extension**

Never collapse these layers.

Every major claim, equation, diagram, and interaction must be traceable to a paper section, figure, table, appendix, or equation. Any synthetic values or conceptual reconstructions must be labeled as such.

The page must repeatedly clarify where visual resemblance is not mathematical identity.

## Operating Workflow

Complete all stages before writing the final Codex prompt.

### Stage 1 — Establish the paper record

Extract and verify:

- full title;
- authors in source order;
- affiliations when relevant;
- arXiv identifier and version;
- initial submission date and latest revision date;
- publication venue when available;
- canonical paper URL;
- abstract;
- field and subfield;
- paper type: empirical, theoretical, systems, methods, benchmark, position, review, or hybrid.

Do not guess metadata. Mark unresolved details explicitly.

### Stage 2 — State the actual thesis

Write an internal one-sentence thesis in this form:

> The paper’s central move is to ______ by showing/arguing/constructing ______.

Then identify:

- the object being studied;
- the old framing the paper challenges;
- the new framing it introduces;
- the mechanism connecting the two;
- the strongest evidence;
- the most important limitation.

Reject vague summaries such as “the paper explores” or “the authors investigate.” Find the load-bearing conceptual reversal.

Examples of useful reversals:

- place → interval;
- model size → predictable performance law;
- isolated message → full exchange;
- bare partition function → observer-inclusive state count;
- static representation → adaptive computation;
- output metric → causal mechanism.

### Stage 3 — Build a source map

Create an internal source ledger with one row per important claim:

- claim or concept;
- source section;
- figure/table/equation;
- evidence class;
- whether it is suitable for interaction;
- caveat.

Evidence classes:

- `DIRECT RESULT`
- `DERIVATION`
- `EMPIRICAL FIT`
- `SYSTEM DESCRIPTION`
- `AUTHOR INTERPRETATION`
- `LIMITATION`
- `CONTEXT JAMMING EXTENSION`

The final Codex prompt must include a condensed version of this ledger in its source-notes specification.

### Stage 4 — Find the narrative spine

Organize the paper into a reader journey, not the paper’s raw section order.

The preferred arc is:

1. The old mental model
2. The anomaly, bottleneck, or conceptual puzzle
3. The paper’s coordinate change or key reframing
4. The simplest mechanism
5. The central equation or measurement
6. A causal or systems view
7. A nontrivial stress test
8. Limits and failure cases
9. A carefully bounded Context Jamming extension
10. Epistemic ledger
11. Glossary
12. Conclusion
13. Source notes

Use 9–16 main sections depending on the paper. Do not pad a short paper to imitate `/kinematic` mechanically.

Each section must have:

- numbered index;
- short kicker;
- editorial title;
- one conceptual job;
- source anchor;
- interaction, equation, or evidence block when useful.

### Stage 5 — Select the interactive primitives

Choose interactions because manipulation teaches the paper’s mechanism—not because animation looks impressive.

A strong interaction lets the reader do at least one of these:

- vary a parameter and see a lawful response;
- move between two representations of the same object;
- reveal a causal cone, path, flow, or dependency;
- compare competing interpretations;
- construct and deconstruct a result;
- trigger a threshold, phase change, or routing decision;
- inspect a residual after cancellation;
- test a boundary or failure condition;
- replay a pipeline or algorithm;
- explore a figure from the paper with grounded controls.

Prefer 6–12 substantial interactives for a long paper and 3–7 for a shorter paper.

For every interaction, specify:

- component name;
- conceptual lesson;
- source figure/equation/section;
- visible geometry;
- controls;
- deterministic state logic;
- readouts;
- initial state;
- reset behavior;
- mobile fallback;
- reduced-motion behavior;
- accessibility labels;
- whether values are paper-derived, calculated, synthetic, or illustrative;
- explicit caveat text.

Avoid:

- meaningless particle effects;
- decorative parallax presented as explanation;
- invented data points;
- sliders with no interpretable consequence;
- generic bar charts unrelated to the paper’s mechanism;
- autoplay that cannot be paused;
- full-page WebGL;
- interactions whose scientific meaning cannot be described in one sentence.

### Stage 6 — Choose the hero instrument

The hero must visualize the paper’s central reversal within five seconds.

Specify:

- a large editorial title, generally 4–10 words;
- a one-sentence subtitle;
- a compact deck for a smart non-specialist;
- primary CTA into the first conceptual section;
- source-paper CTA;
- an interactive or gently animated hero figure;
- two to four source-grounded headline readouts.

The hero visual should juxtapose the old and new framing or show the main mechanism in motion.

It must include a `<title>`, `<desc>`, meaningful figure caption, reduced-motion behavior, and no unsupported numerical claim.

### Stage 7 — Design the equations as arguments

Do not dump equations into decorative cards.

For each displayed equation, tell Codex to include:

- a human-readable name;
- the equation itself;
- variable definitions;
- one sentence explaining what changes when each variable moves;
- the exact paper anchor;
- a disclosure if the implementation uses a simplified or illustrative form.

Prefer equations that drive an interaction.

### Stage 8 — Build the epistemic safety layer

The prompt must require these page elements where relevant:

#### “Do not confuse” callout

Clarify the nearest tempting but false identity.

#### “Where the analogy breaks” section

List concrete mathematical, architectural, empirical, or causal differences.

#### Epistemic ledger

Use columns or cards for:

- established result;
- proposal or interpretation;
- Context Jamming extension.

#### Reconstruction labels

Use labels such as:

- `INTERACTIVE RECONSTRUCTION`
- `CONCEPTUAL RECONSTRUCTION`
- `ILLUSTRATIVE MODEL`
- `SYNTHETIC VALUES`
- `PAPER-DERIVED VALUES`

#### Falsifiability

For speculative extensions, provide testable questions with:

- measurable object;
- possible experiment;
- result that would weaken or falsify the analogy;
- primary confound.

### Stage 9 — Add a bounded Context Jamming extension

Only add a cross-domain bridge when it creates a serious research question.

Good bridges may connect the paper to:

- large language models;
- interpretability;
- sparse routing;
- compression;
- alignment;
- safety systems;
- biological foundation models;
- scientific discovery;
- organizational or market structure.

The bridge must be labeled:

`CONTEXT JAMMING EXTENSION`

or:

`STRUCTURAL ANALOGY, NOT IDENTITY`

Require a two-column mapping:

- paper concept;
- target-domain analogue.

Then require:

- one interactive thought experiment or lab;
- three to five points where the analogy breaks;
- three to five falsifiable research questions.

Do not include a bridge solely because the paper contains fashionable vocabulary.

### Stage 10 — Specify the source notes

The final page must end with an argument-to-source map, not only a bibliography.

For each major section, identify:

- paper section;
- figure or table;
- equation range;
- appendix where relevant;
- whether the page visualization is exact, adapted, or conceptual.

End with a complete citation and a primary-source link.

## Context Jamming Design Grammar

Require Codex to inspect and reuse the repository’s current tokens and route conventions before writing code.

The page should inherit the `/kinematic` family resemblance:

- editorial warm-paper canvas;
- Fraunces or the existing editorial serif for display typography;
- IBM Plex Mono or the existing mono face for labels and data;
- dense but readable scientific linework;
- restrained radii;
- thin rules;
- strong typographic hierarchy;
- inline SVG for diagrams;
- CSS Modules or the repository’s established local styling pattern;
- no generic component-library visual drift.

Prohibit:

- gradients unless already essential to a repository token;
- glassmorphism;
- generic SaaS cards;
- stock illustrations;
- external chart packages for diagrams that can be expressed in SVG;
- arbitrary new colors;
- novelty fonts;
- excessive drop shadows;
- fake terminal styling unrelated to the paper;
- decorative scientific imagery that has no explanatory role.

The page should look authored by Context Jamming, not generated from a generic AI landing-page template.

## Expected Repository Architecture

The generated Codex prompt should instruct Codex to inspect the repository and adapt names to the existing structure, while preferring:

```text
app/<slug>/page.tsx
app/<slug>/<PascalName>Interactives.tsx
app/<slug>/<slug>.module.css
app/<slug>/data.ts                 # when formulas or datasets merit isolation
```

Responsibilities:

### `page.tsx`

- server component;
- metadata and canonical URL;
- JSON-LD when appropriate;
- narrative sections;
- citations and source notes;
- imports client instruments.

### Client interactives file

- begins with `"use client"`;
- deterministic local state;
- no network requests;
- no random render state;
- inline SVG and semantic controls;
- timers paused when hidden;
- reduced-motion support;
- reusable controls only when they improve clarity.

### CSS module

- page-local geometry and responsive rules;
- repository tokens for color and typography;
- no global leakage;
- responsive simplification rather than desktop shrinkage.

### Data module

Use only when it improves auditability for:

- equations;
- fixed paper values;
- scenario definitions;
- labels;
- deterministic calculations.

## Technical Constraints to Put in Every Prompt

Assume the existing Context Jamming production stack unless the checked-out repository says otherwise:

- Next.js App Router;
- TypeScript with strict checking;
- Cloudflare-compatible deployment;
- server-rendered metadata;
- client components only where interaction is required;
- no runtime dependence on Node-only APIs;
- no external data fetch for the explainer itself;
- no API route unless the paper genuinely requires one and the user requested it;
- no iframe;
- no screenshot used as the interactive visualization;
- no hydration mismatch;
- no random values during initial render;
- no unnecessary dependency additions.

## Accessibility Requirements to Put in Every Prompt

Require:

- semantic headings;
- keyboard-operable controls;
- visible focus styles;
- labels for every slider, select, and button;
- `<title>` and `<desc>` inside substantive SVGs;
- useful `role="img"` and `aria-labelledby` relationships;
- captions distinguishing exact and conceptual visuals;
- no information communicated by color alone;
- mobile touch targets;
- `prefers-reduced-motion` support;
- readable equations and fallback text;
- no page-level horizontal scrolling at 320 px.

## Performance Requirements to Put in Every Prompt

Require:

- event-driven animation where possible;
- pause intervals and animation when the document is hidden;
- avoid always-running `requestAnimationFrame` loops;
- use CSS transitions for small state changes;
- use inline SVG rather than large image assets;
- lazy behavior only when it does not harm comprehension;
- keep the route self-contained;
- avoid importing entire unrelated feature bundles;
- preserve static rendering of article copy.

## Validation Requirements to Put in Every Prompt

Tell Codex to inspect `package.json` and run the available equivalents of:

```bash
npm run lint
npm run typecheck
npm run build
```

Also require manual checks for:

- all interactions;
- reset states;
- keyboard operation;
- reduced motion;
- 320 px layout;
- tablet and desktop layout;
- route metadata;
- canonical URL;
- source links;
- no console errors;
- no React warnings;
- no hydration warnings;
- no unsupported claims;
- Cloudflare compatibility;
- no regression to shared navigation or global styles.

## Prompt Construction Rules

The final answer produced by this skill must be a **single copy-paste implementation prompt**.

It must not be a loose brief.

It must contain these headings in this order:

1. `Role and operating context`
2. `Objective`
3. `Primary source`
4. `Central editorial thesis`
5. `Audience and explanatory standard`
6. `Evidence and epistemic rules`
7. `Route, metadata, and page identity`
8. `Narrative architecture`
9. `Interactive component specifications`
10. `Context Jamming extension`
11. `Source notes and citation map`
12. `Visual system`
13. `Component architecture`
14. `Responsive behavior`
15. `Accessibility`
16. `Performance and production constraints`
17. `Validation`
18. `Completion report`

Every heading must contain paper-specific instructions, not boilerplate alone.

## Required Specificity in the Final Prompt

The final Codex prompt must name:

- the route;
- page title;
- subtitle;
- central thesis;
- paper metadata;
- section titles and jobs;
- every proposed interactive component;
- the paper source behind each component;
- controls and deterministic behavior;
- formulas and readouts;
- caveat language;
- glossary topics;
- source-note anchors;
- likely source files;
- validation commands;
- completion-report format.

Avoid unresolved placeholders such as:

- `[ADD INTERACTIVE HERE]`
- `[INSERT TITLE]`
- `[FIGURE TBD]`
- `[CHOOSE COLORS]`

The only acceptable unresolved items are details that genuinely require repository inspection. Phrase those as explicit inspection tasks, not blanks.

## Interaction Specification Template

Use this template internally for every proposed instrument, then convert it to prose in the final Codex prompt:

```text
Component:
Conceptual job:
Paper anchor:
Visual form:
Controls:
State model:
Calculated outputs:
Initial state:
Reset behavior:
Mobile behavior:
Reduced-motion behavior:
Accessibility:
Evidence label:
Caveat:
```

## Section Specification Template

Use this template internally for every narrative section:

```text
Number:
Kicker:
Title:
Reader question:
Core explanation:
Paper anchor:
Primary visual or equation:
Misconception prevented:
Transition to next section:
```

## Selection Rubric for Figures and Equations

Prioritize a paper figure or equation when it scores highly on these dimensions:

- centrality to thesis;
- manipulability;
- causal clarity;
- educational payoff;
- visual distinctiveness;
- source traceability;
- mobile feasibility.

Do not reproduce figures merely because they appear early in the paper.

When adapting a figure:

- preserve the relationships that matter;
- simplify labels for a non-specialist;
- disclose that it is adapted;
- cite the original figure;
- avoid pixel-copying the publisher’s artwork;
- implement a new explanatory reconstruction.

## Editorial Voice

Write the Codex prompt for a page that reads like a rigorous Quanta-style feature filtered through Context Jamming’s sharper systems lens.

The prose should be:

- exact;
- concrete;
- conceptually ambitious;
- accessible to a smart reader without a PhD;
- skeptical of false equivalence;
- explicit about evidence boundaries;
- free of hype and generic AI language.

Prefer sentences such as:

> The paper does not merely improve X. It changes what counts as X.

> The visual resemblance is real. The mathematical identity is not.

> This is a structural analogy, not a result established by the paper.

Avoid repetitive use of these formulations. They are tonal references, not mandatory copy.

## Failure Modes

Do not produce a prompt that:

- summarizes the paper section by section without a narrative thesis;
- treats all author claims as established results;
- invents measurements for attractive readouts;
- claims an LLM analogy is demonstrated by a physics or biology paper;
- uses the kinematic page only as surface styling;
- proposes twelve interchangeable sliders;
- asks Codex to decide the science;
- depends on inaccessible assets;
- embeds the PDF in an iframe;
- uses screenshots instead of native diagrams;
- forgets source notes;
- omits mobile and accessibility behavior;
- tells Codex to “make it beautiful” without design constraints;
- leaves implementation decisions unresolved when they can be specified from the paper.

## Output Format

Return only:

1. A one-sentence preamble identifying the derived page concept.
2. One markdown writing block containing the complete Codex prompt.

Do not append a second alternative prompt unless the user asks for options.

## Final Self-Audit

Before returning the prompt, verify:

- Can the thesis be stated in one sentence?
- Does every interaction teach a specific mechanism?
- Is every major interaction source-anchored?
- Are established results separated from interpretation and extension?
- Is synthetic data clearly labeled?
- Does the hero reveal the central conceptual reversal?
- Does the page contain at least one stress test or failure case?
- Is there a “where the analogy breaks” section when an analogy is used?
- Are speculative extensions falsifiable?
- Could Codex implement the route without making scientific content decisions?
- Does the prompt preserve Context Jamming’s existing design tokens and stack?
- Are accessibility, responsive behavior, performance, and validation explicit?
- Are there no unresolved decorative or scientific placeholders?

If any answer is no, revise before returning.

## Example Invocation

User input:

> Use the attached arXiv paper and the kinematic scaffold to generate a Codex prompt for `/new-paper-slug`. Explain it to a smart non-PhD audience and include an LLM bridge only where defensible.

Expected skill behavior:

1. Read and map the paper.
2. Identify its central conceptual reversal.
3. Select source-grounded interactive mechanisms.
4. Separate paper results, author interpretation, and Context Jamming extension.
5. Produce one complete implementation prompt following the required 18-part structure.