It
Not really an answer, but it seems to me the "recipe for a good recipe" you gave applies better to a well-written paper rather than a good proof. Here's how I think they correspond to each other:
One bright red flag is the extremely short recipe. It looks so easy and it can betray you in a nanosecond. That brevity often comes from cutting out the specific information you need to know to end up with something worth eating.
One bright red flag is the extremely short paper. It looks so easy and it can betray you in a nanosecond. That brevity often comes from cutting out the specific information you need to know to end up with something worth knowing.
·Does the recipe tell you what you can prepare ahead?
·Does it tell you how to store the food and for how long?
·Does the paper tell you what you can prove ahead?
·Does it tell you how to use the result?
·Are the ingredients specific -- not "1 pound beef," but "1 pound well-marbled beef chuck"?
·Do the statements rely less on context -- not "let $a$ be positive," but "let $a$ be a positive integer"?
·Do the instructions tell you ...
$\quad$·What kind of pot and utensils to use?
$\quad$·The level of heat and/or the timing needed for each step?
$\quad$·What the food should look like, sound like, and/or smell like?
$\quad$·How to know if it's done?
$\quad$·How to serve?
·Does the body text tell you ...
$\quad$·What kind of known result and technique to use?
$\quad$·The level of attention needed to pay to each paragraph?
$\quad$·What the result should look like, sound like, and/or smell like?
$\quad$·When the paper concludes?
$\quad$·How to persuade others to read too?
