Orchestration Log: When this skill is activated, append a log entry to
outputs/orchestration_log.md:### Skill Activation: Writing Engine **Timestamp:** [current date/time] **Actor:** AI Agent (writing-engine) **Input:** [brief description of what the user asked to write/draft/revise] **Output:** [brief description of what was produced — e.g., "Complete draft of Introduction (1,200 words)"]
Writing Engine
Core Principle
The biggest barrier to writing is the blank page. This skill eliminates it by providing fill-in-the-blank templates at every level: sentence, paragraph, section, and full paper. Claude should NEVER give vague advice like "write a compelling introduction." Instead, Claude produces ACTUAL DRAFT TEXT that the researcher can edit.
When the User Says "Help Me Write" — What to Do
- Ask what section (if not clear)
- Ask what the key inputs are (RQ, findings, theory — whatever that section needs)
- PRODUCE A COMPLETE DRAFT — not an outline, not bullet points, actual paragraphs
- Mark placeholders with [BRACKETS] where specific data is needed
- Include inline citation placeholders as (Author, Year) or [CITE] where references go
INTRODUCTION (Target: 1500-2000 words for journal, 800-1000 for conference)
The 6-Paragraph Formula
Paragraph 1 — The Hook (Practical Relevance) Open with a striking fact, trend, or problem from practice. Ground the reader immediately.
Template:
[Phenomenon] is transforming [domain/industry]. [Concrete statistic or trend, e.g.,
"By 2025, X% of organizations..."] (Source, Year). [Second sentence expanding scope].
This development raises fundamental questions about [broad challenge], particularly
regarding [specific aspect your paper addresses].
Example for the GenAI/Agents paper:
Generative AI and autonomous AI agents are fundamentally reshaping how organizations
operate, make decisions, and create value. According to [McKinsey/Gartner], [X]% of
enterprises have initiated pilot projects with generative AI, while autonomous agents
are projected to handle [Y]% of routine business processes by [year] (Source, Year).
This rapid adoption raises pressing questions about how organizations can effectively
implement these technologies while managing the profound organizational changes they entail.
Paragraph 2 — Academic Context (What We Know) Briefly position the topic in the scholarly conversation. Name 3-5 key streams.
Template:
The academic community has begun to examine [topic] from multiple perspectives.
Research on [stream 1] has investigated [aspect] (Author1, Year; Author2, Year).
Studies in [stream 2] have explored [aspect] (Author3, Year; Author4, Year).
More recently, [stream 3] has examined [emerging aspect] (Author5, Year).
Together, these streams provide important foundations, yet [transition to gap].
Paragraph 3 — The Gap (What We Don't Know) The most critical paragraph. Must be specific, non-trivial, and convincing.
Gap patterns (use ONE or combine):
- Fragmented knowledge: "While these streams provide valuable insights individually, they remain largely disconnected. No integrative framework exists that [combines X and Y]."
- Missing context: "Although [phenomenon] is well-understood in [context A], its dynamics in [context B] remain unexplored. This matters because [reason]."
- Temporal gap: "Much of the existing research predates the emergence of [new development]. Given that [what changed], updated investigation is needed."
- Missing mechanism: "Prior work establishes that [X influences Y], but the underlying mechanisms — specifically [what and how] — are insufficiently understood."
- Methodological limitation: "Existing studies rely predominantly on [method], which cannot capture [important dynamic]. A [different approach] is needed to [achieve what]."
Template:
However, several important gaps remain. First, [gap 1 — be specific]. Second, [gap 2].
Third, [gap 3 if applicable]. These gaps are consequential because [why it matters
for theory AND practice]. Without [what's missing], [negative consequence for the field].
Paragraph 4 — Research Objective & Questions State exactly what the paper does.
Template:
To address these gaps, this study [verb: investigates/develops/examines/proposes]
[specific object of research]. Specifically, we ask:
RQ1: [First research question — most important]
RQ2: [Second research question — if applicable]
[RQ3: Optional third question]
To answer [these questions/this question], we [brief method description:
conduct a systematic literature review / develop a DSR artifact / employ a
multiple case study approach / survey N organizations].
Paragraph 5 — Contribution Statement The make-or-break paragraph for reviewers.
Template (3-contribution pattern):
This study makes three contributions to [field/literature stream]. First, we
[specific contribution 1 — what new knowledge]. While prior work has [what they did],
we [what you do differently]. Second, we [contribution 2 — theoretical or methodological].
This extends [theory/framework] by [specific extension]. Third, we derive [contribution 3 —
practical]. For practitioners, our findings provide [actionable insight: guidelines /
framework / decision criteria / implementation roadmap].
Paragraph 6 — Roadmap Keep it short.
Template:
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews [theoretical
foundations and related work]. Section 3 describes our [research methodology].
Section 4 presents [results/findings/the artifact]. Section 5 discusses [implications
and limitations]. Section 6 concludes [with key takeaways and future research directions].
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND / LITERATURE REVIEW (Target: 3000-5000 words journal, 1500-2500 conference)
Structure Options
Option A — By Concept (most common for empirical papers)
2. Theoretical Background
2.1 [Core Concept 1, e.g., "Generative AI in Organizational Contexts"]
2.2 [Core Concept 2, e.g., "Autonomous AI Agents: Definitions and Capabilities"]
2.3 [Theoretical Lens, e.g., "Socio-Technical Systems Theory"]
2.4 [Integration, e.g., "Research Model / Conceptual Framework"]
Option B — Funnel (broad to narrow)
2. Related Work
2.1 [Broad field, e.g., "AI Adoption in Organizations"]
2.2 [Narrower, e.g., "From Automation to Augmentation: The Agent Paradigm"]
2.3 [Your specific niche, e.g., "Implementation Strategies for GenAI Systems"]
2.4 [Theoretical framing]
Option C — For Systematic Literature Reviews
2. Conceptual Background
2.1 [Key concept definitions]
2.2 [Prior reviews and their limitations]
Subsection Writing Template
Each subsection should follow this pattern:
[Opening sentence: Define the concept or state the subsection's purpose]
[Body: 2-4 paragraphs reviewing key papers. For each paper or cluster of papers:]
- What they studied
- How they studied it (method)
- What they found
- How it relates to YOUR study
[Closing sentence: Transition to the next subsection or identify what's missing]
Concrete paragraph template for reviewing papers:
[Author] (Year) [examined/investigated/developed] [what] using [method]
in [context]. Their findings [suggest/reveal/demonstrate] that [key finding].
[Optional: This is consistent with / contrasts with Author2 (Year) who found [X].]
While this work provides important insights into [aspect], it does not address
[what your paper addresses / the context your paper examines].
Theory Application Paragraph Template
We draw on [Theory] (Originator, Year) to frame our investigation. [Theory]
posits that [core argument in 2-3 sentences — the actual mechanism, not just
the theory name]. This lens is particularly appropriate for studying [your topic]
because [2-3 reasons: (1) fit with phenomenon