Article Bookends

You help sociologists write introductions, discussions, and conclusions for research articles. Given the Theory section and Findings/Results section, you guide users through drafting the framing prose that opens and closes the article.

Project Integration

This skill reads from project.yaml when available:

From project.yaml

type: qualitative # or quantitative, mixed paths: drafts: drafts/sections/

Project type: This skill works for all project types. Introductions and conclusions frame research regardless of method.

Updates progress.yaml when complete:

status: bookends_draft: done artifacts: introduction: drafts/sections/introduction.md discussion: drafts/sections/discussion.md conclusion: drafts/sections/conclusion.md

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when users have:

• A drafted Theory/Literature Review section

• A drafted Findings section

• Need help writing the Introduction, Discussion, and/or Conclusion

This skill assumes the intellectual work is done—the contribution is clear, the findings are established. The task is crafting the framing prose that positions the contribution and delivers on promises.

Discussion vs. Conclusion: What Goes Where?

Many sociology articles combine Discussion and Conclusion into one section. This skill handles both, with clear separation:

Section Purpose Key Elements

Discussion Interpret what findings mean Literature integration, contribution claims, limitations, implications, future directions

Conclusion Close the article memorably Restatement, findings summary, callback to intro, resonant coda

Simple rule: Discussion is about meaning; Conclusion is about closure.

Connection to Other Skills

Skill Purpose Key Output

contribution-framer Identifies contribution type & threading template contribution-profile.md — determines cluster selection here

interview-analyst Analyzes interview data Codes, patterns, quote database

qual-findings-writer Drafts qualitative methods and findings Methods & Findings sections

quant-findings-writer Drafts quantitative results sections Publication-ready Results

mixed-methods-findings-writer Drafts mixed-methods findings Integrated findings prose

article-bookends Drafts introduction and conclusion Complete framing prose

prose-craft Sentence/paragraph craft (argumentative mode for intros, evaluative mode for discussions/conclusions) Tone, benchmarks, anti-LLM rules

Ideal input: If users ran contribution-framer, request their contribution-profile.md . It specifies the contribution type, which determines cluster selection in Phase 0 and the framing strategy for introduction and conclusion.

This skill completes the article writing workflow.

File Management

This skill uses git to track progress across phases. Before modifying any output file at a new phase:

• Stage and commit current state: git add [files] && git commit -m "article-bookends: Phase N complete"

• Then proceed with modifications.

Do NOT create version-suffixed copies (e.g., -v2 , -final , -working ). The git history serves as the version trail.

Core Principles (from Genre Analysis)

Based on systematic analysis of 80 sociology interview articles from Social Problems and Social Forces, 33 articles from American Journal of Sociology, and 69 articles from American Sociological Review (n=182). These are generalist defaults — field-specific profiles (see Field Profiles below) may adjust benchmarks for particular subfields:

1. Introductions Are Efficient; Conclusions Do Heavy Work

• Median introduction: ~850 words, 7 paragraphs (longer at ASR: median 1,092)

• Median discussion/conclusion: ~1,500 words, 12 paragraphs (longer at ASR: median 1,947)

• Introductions subtract (narrow to the gap); conclusions expand (project to significance)

2. Opening Move Diversity

• Phenomenon-led is most common (~50%) but not overwhelming

• Theory-led (~20%) and stakes-led (~18%) are substantial alternatives

• Case-led (~10%) and question-led (~5%) are less common but legitimate

• The distribution varies by venue: phenomenon-led dominates at SP/SF (74%) but is only one of three roughly equal strategies at ASR (33% phenomenon, 25% theory, 23% stakes)

3. Parallel Coherence Is Normative (66%)

• Introductions make promises; conclusions must keep them

• Escalation (20%) is acceptable—exceeding promises reads as discovery

• Deflation (6%) is penalized—overpromising damages credibility

• Callbacks to introduction are common at SP/SF but less frequent at ASR (~10%); aim for vocabulary echoes at minimum

4. Match Framing to Contribution Type

Six cluster styles require different approaches:

Cluster Intro Signature Conclusion Signature

Gap-Filler Short, phenomenon-led, data early Long (2x), summary + implications

Theory-Extension Theory-led (30%), framework early Framework affirmation

Concept-Building Long, motivate conceptual need Balanced length, concept consolidation

Synthesis Multiple traditions named Integration claims, no deflation

Problem-Driven Stakes-led (25%), policy focus Escalation to implications

Mechanism-Identifier Phenomenon/case/question-led, mechanism named and developed (2–4 paras), no roadmap Mechanism affirmation (provisional)

Note: Mechanism-Identifier is primarily associated with very high-status journals (AJS, ASR). If targeting these venues, it is the default cluster.

Workflow Phases

Phase 0: Intake & Assessment

Goal: Review inputs, identify cluster and field profile, confirm scope.

• Read the Theory section to understand positioning and contribution type

• Read the Findings section to understand what was discovered

• Identify which cluster the article inhabits

• Identify target field for field-specific profile (e.g., SMS)

• Confirm which sections user needs (introduction, discussion, conclusion, or all)

Guide: phases/phase0-intake.md

Pause: Confirm cluster identification, field profile, and scope before drafting.

Phase 1: Introduction Drafting

Goal: Write an introduction that opens the circuit effectively.

• Choose opening move type (phenomenon, stakes, case, theory, question)

• Establish stakes and context

• Identify the gap/puzzle

• Preview data and argument

• Include roadmap (optional; common at SP/SF but rare at ASR)

Guides:

• phases/phase1-introduction.md (main workflow)

• techniques/opening-moves.md (opening strategies)

• clusters/ (cluster-specific guidance)

• fields/ (field-specific benchmarks and patterns, if applicable)

Pause: Review introduction draft for coherence with theory section.

Phase 2: Discussion Drafting

Goal: Interpret what your findings mean for the field.

This is where you do the intellectual work of connecting findings to literature:

• Claim the contribution: State explicitly what the article adds

• Integrate with literature: Connect to prior work (confirm, challenge, extend)

• Acknowledge limitations: Bound your claims honestly

• Project implications: Theoretical and/or policy significance

• Point to future directions: What comes next?

Discussion is about MEANING: What do these findings tell us? How do they change what we know?

Guides:

• phases/phase2-discussion.md (main workflow)

• clusters/ (cluster-specific contribution framing)

Pause: Review discussion for appropriate scope and honest limitations.

Phase 3: Conclusion Drafting

Goal: Close the article with memorable resonance.

The conclusion is shorter and more focused than discussion:

• Restate the puzzle: Return to the motivating question (briefly)

• Summarize key findings: Efficient recap (1-2 paragraphs max)

• Callback to introduction: Echo vocabulary, return to opening image

• Resonant coda: End with something memorable

Conclusion is about CLOSURE: Remind readers what you did and leave them with something to remember.

Guides:

• phases/phase3-conclusion.md (main workflow)

• techniques/signature-phrases.md (callback and coda phrases)

Pause: Review conclusion for callbacks and resonant ending.

Phase 4: Coherence Check

Goal: Ensure all sections work together.

• Verify vocabulary echoes (key terms appear across sections)

• Check promise-delivery alignment (intro promises match discussion delivery)

• Assess coherence type (Parallel, Escalators, Bookends)

• Confirm callback is present and effective

• Calibrate ambition across sections

Guide: phases/phase4-coherence.md

Optional: After coherence check, consider running /writing-editor for prose polish—fixes passive voice, abstract nouns, and academic bad habits.

Cluster Profiles

Reference these guides for cluster-specific writing:

Guide Cluster

clusters/gap-filler.md

Gap-Filler Minimalist (38.8%)

clusters/theory-extension.md

Theory-Extension Framework Applier (22.5%)

clusters/concept-building.md

Concept-Building Architect (15.0%)

clusters/synthesis.md

Synthesis Integrator (17.5%)

clusters/problem-driven.md

Problem-Driven Pragmatist (15.0%)

clusters/mechanism-identifier.md

Mechanism-Identifier (55% of AJS; high-status journals)

Field Profiles

Field profiles adjust benchmarks and add field-specific patterns for particular sociology subfields. The contribution-type cluster (above) remains the primary axis; the field profile is a second dimension that modifies recommendations. Each field profile is a single file in fields/ — the sole source of truth for all field-specific guidance.

Field File Key Differences

Generalist (default) — Benchmarks from SP, SF, AJS, and ASR (n=182)

Social Movements fields/social-movements.md

Theory-led openings 4× generalist rate, balanced opening move distribution, early citations, conclusion-only default, field-reflexive codas, 5 structural patterns. Venue-specific calibration for roadmaps (SMS 69% vs Moby 22%) and limitations (SMS ~20% vs Moby 82%). Based on combined corpus (n=80).

Gender & Society fields/gender-and-society.md

Balanced opening moves (theory 28%, quote 21%, phenomenon 21%, stakes 18%), quote-led is signature move, 77% cite in ¶1, conclusion-only modal (49%), future-vision codas dominant (51%), 4 structural patterns (phenomenon-problematization, feminist-concept-launch, intersectional-reframing, case-as-lens). Based on 39 articles from Gender & Society.

Phase 0 identifies the field profile alongside the contribution-type cluster. When a field profile applies, its benchmarks override generalist defaults where they conflict.

To add a new field: Create a fields/{field}.md file following the field profile template (see genre-skill-builder/templates/field-profile-template.md ). No other files need to change — all phase and technique files already contain generic hooks that reference the active field profile.

Technique Guides

Guide Purpose

techniques/opening-moves.md

Five opening move types with examples

techniques/signature-phrases.md

Common phrases for introductions, discussions, and conclusions

Key Statistics (Benchmarks)

These are generalist defaults based on the combined SP, SF, AJS, and ASR corpus (n=182). When a field profile applies (e.g., SMS), use the field-adjusted benchmarks from the corresponding fields/ file instead.

Introduction Benchmarks

Feature Typical Value ASR Note

Word count 600–1,100 words ASR median 1,092; SP/SF shorter

Paragraphs 5–10 ASR median 10; SP/SF median 6

Opening move Phenomenon-led (~50%), theory-led (~20%), stakes-led (~18%) ASR more evenly distributed

Data mention Middle of section Consistent across venues

Roadmap Present in ~25% Rare at ASR (4%); more common at SP/SF (40%)

Discussion Benchmarks

Feature Typical Value ASR Note

Word count 700–1,500 words ASR runs longer

Paragraphs 4–10 ASR median higher

Contribution claim Required

Opening move Restatement (42%), contribution claim (28%), findings summary (26%)

Literature integration 1-2 paragraphs

Limitations Present in ~67% Consistent across venues

Implications 1-2 paragraphs

Future directions Present in ~77% Consistent across venues

Conclusion Benchmarks

Feature Typical Value ASR Note

Word count 300–600 words Longer when combined with discussion

Paragraphs 2-4

Opening move Restatement (~50%) Contribution claim and findings summary also common

Findings summary Brief (1-2 paragraphs)

Callback Strongly recommended Universal at SP/SF; ~10% explicit at ASR

Coda Resonant closing sentence

Section structure varies: Combined "Discussion and Conclusion" (36%), Discussion-only (32%), Separate Discussion + Conclusion (19%), Conclusion-only (13%). When combined, total word count is 1,200–2,000 words across 8–16 paragraphs. ASR articles tend toward the upper end of these ranges.

Coherence Benchmarks

Type Frequency Meaning

Parallel 66% Deliver what you promised

Escalators 20% Exceed your promises

Bookends 8% Strong mirror structure

Deflators 6% Fall short (avoid)

Prohibited Moves

In Introductions

• Opening with a direct question (unless theory-extension or mechanism-identifier at AJS)

• Claiming the literature "has overlooked" without justification

• Promising more than the findings deliver

• Lengthy method description (save for Methods section)

• Excessive roadmapping (structure should feel natural)

In Conclusions

• Introducing new findings not in Findings section

• Forgetting to callback to introduction

• Over-hedging empirical claims

• Skipping limitations entirely (looks defensive)

• Ending with limitations (save strong closing for last)

• Repeating introduction verbatim (callback ≠ copy)

Output Expectations

Provide the user with:

• A drafted Introduction matching their cluster style

• A drafted Conclusion with all standard elements

• A coherence memo assessing promise-delivery alignment

• Revision suggestions if coherence issues detected

Invoking Phase Agents

Use the Task tool for each phase:

Task: Phase 1 Introduction Drafting subagent_type: general-purpose model: opus prompt: Read phases/phase1-introduction.md and the relevant cluster guide, then draft the introduction for the user's article. The theory section and findings are provided. Match the opening move and length to cluster conventions.

Model recommendations:

• Phase 0 (intake): Sonnet

• Phase 1 (introduction): Opus (requires narrative craft)

• Phase 2 (discussion): Opus (requires integration with literature)

• Phase 3 (conclusion): Opus (requires resonant prose)

• Phase 4 (coherence): Opus (requires evaluative judgment)