writing-engine

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

1. Ask what section (if not clear)
2. Ask what the key inputs are (RQ, findings, theory — whatever that section needs)
3. PRODUCE A COMPLETE DRAFT — not an outline, not bullet points, actual paragraphs
4. Mark placeholders with [BRACKETS] where specific data is needed
5. 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