@wentorai/research-plugins 1.0.0

package/skills/writing/composition/abstract-writing-guide/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+---
+name: abstract-writing-guide
+description: "Craft structured research abstracts that maximize clarity and journal acceptance"
+metadata:
+  openclaw:
+    emoji: "memo"
+    category: "writing"
+    subcategory: "composition"
+    keywords: ["abstract writing", "summary writing", "research abstract", "paper title writing", "structured abstract"]
+    source: "wentor"
+---
+
+# Abstract Writing Guide
+
+A skill for writing effective research abstracts that clearly communicate your study's purpose, methods, results, and significance. Covers structured and unstructured formats, word count optimization, and common pitfalls.
+
+## Abstract Structures
+
+### Structured Abstract (IMRaD)
+
+Most journals in science and medicine require a structured abstract:
+
+```
+BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: 1-2 sentences on the problem and study aim
+METHODS: 2-3 sentences on study design, participants, and analysis
+RESULTS: 2-4 sentences with key quantitative findings
+CONCLUSION: 1-2 sentences on implications and significance
+
+Total: typically 150-300 words (check journal requirements)
+```
+
+### Unstructured Abstract
+
+Common in social sciences and humanities:
+
+```
+Sentence 1: Context and problem statement
+Sentence 2: Research gap or objective
+Sentence 3: Methods overview
+Sentence 4-5: Key findings
+Sentence 6: Implications and significance
+
+Total: typically 150-250 words
+```
+
+## Writing Process
+
+### Step-by-Step Framework
+
+```python
+def generate_abstract_outline(study_info: dict) -> dict:
+    """
+    Generate an abstract outline from study information.
+
+    Args:
+        study_info: Dict with keys: 'problem', 'gap', 'objective',
+                    'design', 'sample', 'methods', 'key_findings',
+                    'implications', 'word_limit'
+    Returns:
+        Structured abstract outline with estimated word counts
+    """
+    word_limit = study_info.get('word_limit', 250)
+
+    # Allocate words proportionally
+    sections = {
+        'background': {
+            'allocation_pct': 0.15,
+            'content': [study_info['problem'], study_info['gap']],
+            'template': "Despite {problem}, {gap}. This study aimed to {objective}."
+        },
+        'methods': {
+            'allocation_pct': 0.25,
+            'content': [study_info['design'], study_info['sample'], study_info['methods']],
+            'template': "A {design} was conducted with {sample}. {methods}."
+        },
+        'results': {
+            'allocation_pct': 0.35,
+            'content': study_info['key_findings'],
+            'template': "Results showed {findings}."
+        },
+        'conclusion': {
+            'allocation_pct': 0.25,
+            'content': study_info['implications'],
+            'template': "These findings suggest {implications}."
+        }
+    }
+
+    for section in sections.values():
+        section['target_words'] = round(word_limit * section['allocation_pct'])
+
+    return {
+        'sections': sections,
+        'word_limit': word_limit,
+        'tips': [
+            'Write the Results section first (most important)',
+            'Use past tense for methods and results',
+            'Avoid abbreviations unless space-saving is critical',
+            'Include at least one quantitative result with effect size',
+            'Do not include citations in the abstract'
+        ]
+    }
+```
+
+### Example: Well-Written Abstract
+
+```
+Background: Chronic low back pain affects 23% of the global adult population,
+yet optimal exercise interventions remain unclear. This systematic review and
+meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of yoga, Pilates, and
+general exercise for reducing pain and disability in chronic low back pain.
+
+Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PEDro from
+inception to December 2025. Randomized controlled trials comparing yoga,
+Pilates, or general exercise to usual care were included. Pain (VAS/NRS)
+and disability (ODI/RMDQ) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
+
+Results: Thirty-seven RCTs (N = 3,421) met inclusion criteria. All exercise
+types significantly reduced pain compared to usual care: yoga (SMD = -0.73,
+95% CI [-0.94, -0.52]), Pilates (SMD = -0.62, 95% CI [-0.81, -0.43]),
+and general exercise (SMD = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.33]). Yoga showed
+significantly greater pain reduction than general exercise (p = 0.03)
+but not Pilates (p = 0.28). Heterogeneity was moderate (I-squared = 48-61%).
+
+Conclusion: Yoga, Pilates, and general exercise all effectively reduce
+chronic low back pain, with yoga showing a modest advantage over general
+exercise. Clinicians should consider patient preferences when recommending
+exercise modalities.
+```
+
+## Title Writing
+
+### Title Construction Principles
+
+```python
+def evaluate_title(title: str) -> dict:
+    """Evaluate a paper title against best practices."""
+    checks = {}
+
+    # Length check
+    word_count = len(title.split())
+    checks['word_count'] = word_count
+    checks['length_ok'] = 10 <= word_count <= 20
+
+    # Key content checks
+    checks['has_colon'] = ':' in title  # Structured titles often use colons
+    checks['starts_with_article'] = title.lower().startswith(('a ', 'an ', 'the '))
+    checks['has_abbreviation'] = any(w.isupper() and len(w) > 1 for w in title.split())
+
+    # Title type classification
+    if '?' in title:
+        checks['type'] = 'question'
+    elif ':' in title:
+        checks['type'] = 'compound'
+    elif title.split()[0].endswith('ing'):
+        checks['type'] = 'gerund'
+    else:
+        checks['type'] = 'declarative'
+
+    checks['recommendations'] = []
+    if word_count > 20:
+        checks['recommendations'].append('Consider shortening -- aim for 10-15 words')
+    if word_count < 8:
+        checks['recommendations'].append('Consider adding specificity')
+    if checks['starts_with_article']:
+        checks['recommendations'].append('Avoid starting with articles (A/An/The)')
+    if checks['has_abbreviation']:
+        checks['recommendations'].append('Spell out abbreviations in titles')
+
+    return checks
+```
+
+### Title Patterns by Discipline
+
+| Pattern | Example | Common In |
+|---------|---------|-----------|
+| Method: Finding | "Deep Learning for Protein Structure: A Comparative Study" | CS, Engineering |
+| Declarative | "Mindfulness Reduces Cortisol in College Students" | Psychology, Medicine |
+| Question | "Does Remote Work Improve Productivity?" | Social Sciences |
+| Descriptive | "Gene Expression Patterns in Early-Stage Lung Cancer" | Biology, Medicine |
+
+## Common Mistakes to Avoid
+
+1. **Vague conclusions**: "More research is needed" -- instead, state specific implications
+2. **Missing numbers**: Always include at least one quantitative finding
+3. **New information**: Never introduce information not in the paper
+4. **Excessive background**: Readers know the field -- get to your contribution quickly
+5. **Passive voice overuse**: Use active voice where possible ("We found" not "It was found")
+6. **Promising more than delivering**: The abstract must accurately represent the paper's scope

package/skills/writing/composition/discussion-writing-guide/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+---
+name: discussion-writing-guide
+description: "Write effective discussion sections that interpret results and impact"
+metadata:
+  openclaw:
+    emoji: "thought_balloon"
+    category: "writing"
+    subcategory: "composition"
+    keywords: ["discussion section", "academic writing", "results interpretation", "paper structure", "research implications"]
+    source: "wentor-research-plugins"
+---
+
+# Discussion Writing Guide
+
+A skill for writing compelling discussion sections in academic papers. Covers the standard structure, strategies for interpreting results, addressing limitations, connecting to existing literature, and articulating the broader implications of your findings.
+
+## Discussion Section Structure
+
+### The Hourglass Model
+
+The discussion mirrors the introduction in reverse -- it starts narrow (your specific findings) and broadens to implications:
+
+```
+Introduction:  Broad context -> Specific gap -> Your question
+Discussion:    Your findings -> Broader literature -> Implications
+
+Standard Structure:
+  1. Summary of key findings (1-2 paragraphs)
+  2. Interpretation and comparison with literature (bulk of section)
+  3. Limitations (1-2 paragraphs)
+  4. Implications and future directions (1-2 paragraphs)
+  5. Conclusion (optional, or as separate section)
+```
+
+### Paragraph-Level Template
+
+```python
+def outline_discussion(findings: list[dict],
+                       literature_connections: list[dict],
+                       limitations: list[str],
+                       implications: list[str]) -> dict:
+    """
+    Generate a structured discussion outline.
+
+    Args:
+        findings: List of dicts with 'result' and 'interpretation'
+        literature_connections: Dicts with 'finding', 'related_work', 'comparison'
+        limitations: List of limitation statements
+        implications: List of implication statements
+    """
+    outline = {
+        "opening_paragraph": {
+            "purpose": "Restate the research question and summarize key findings",
+            "template": (
+                "This study examined [research question]. "
+                "The principal finding was [main result], "
+                "which [supports/contradicts/extends] [hypothesis or expectation]."
+            ),
+            "tips": [
+                "Do NOT repeat numbers from Results -- summarize in words",
+                "State whether hypotheses were supported",
+                "Lead with the most important finding"
+            ]
+        },
+        "interpretation_paragraphs": [
+            {
+                "finding": f["result"],
+                "interpretation": f["interpretation"],
+                "literature": next(
+                    (lc for lc in literature_connections
+                     if lc["finding"] == f["result"]), None
+                )
+            }
+            for f in findings
+        ],
+        "limitations": {
+            "items": limitations,
+            "tip": "Frame limitations honestly but not apologetically"
+        },
+        "implications": {
+            "items": implications,
+            "tip": "Distinguish practical implications from theoretical ones"
+        }
+    }
+    return outline
+```
+
+## Interpreting Results
+
+### Connecting Findings to Literature
+
+Each major finding should be discussed in relation to prior work:
+
+```
+Pattern 1 - Consistent with prior work:
+  "Our finding that X is associated with Y is consistent with
+   Smith et al. (2022), who reported a similar relationship in
+   [different context]. This convergence across [populations/methods]
+   strengthens the evidence that [mechanism/explanation]."
+
+Pattern 2 - Contradicts prior work:
+  "In contrast to Jones et al. (2021), who found no effect of X
+   on Y, our results suggest a significant positive relationship.
+   This discrepancy may be explained by [methodological differences,
+   population differences, measurement differences]."
+
+Pattern 3 - Extends prior work:
+  "While previous studies have established that X affects Y,
+   our results extend this finding by showing that this effect
+   is moderated by Z, suggesting [new insight]."
+
+Pattern 4 - Novel finding:
+  "To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate [finding].
+   One possible explanation is [mechanism]. However, this interpretation
+   should be treated with caution until [replication/additional evidence]."
+```
+
+### Avoiding Common Mistakes
+
+```
+DO NOT:
+  - Simply restate results with numbers (that is the Results section)
+  - Introduce new results not presented in the Results section
+  - Overclaim: "This proves that..." (use "suggests," "indicates")
+  - Ignore findings that contradict your hypothesis
+  - Speculate without clearly labeling it as speculation
+
+DO:
+  - Interpret what the results MEAN, not just what they ARE
+  - Address unexpected or negative findings
+  - Explain WHY your results may differ from others
+  - Connect findings to theory or conceptual frameworks
+  - Use hedging language appropriately (may, might, suggests, appears)
+```
+
+## Writing About Limitations
+
+### Framing Limitations Constructively
+
+```
+Weak framing:
+  "A limitation of this study is that the sample size was small."
+
+Better framing:
+  "The sample size (N=45) may have limited statistical power to
+   detect small effects. However, the effect sizes observed for
+   our primary outcomes were medium to large (Cohen's d = 0.6-0.8),
+   suggesting that the main findings are robust. Future studies
+   with larger samples could examine whether the non-significant
+   trends observed for secondary outcomes reach significance."
+
+Structure for each limitation:
+  1. State the limitation clearly
+  2. Explain its potential impact on the findings
+  3. Note any mitigating factors
+  4. Suggest how future work could address it
+```
+
+### Common Limitation Categories
+
+| Category | Examples |
+|----------|---------|
+| Design | Cross-sectional (cannot infer causation), no control group |
+| Sample | Small N, non-representative, convenience sampling |
+| Measurement | Self-report bias, single-item measures, validity concerns |
+| Analysis | Multiple comparisons, missing data, model assumptions |
+| Generalizability | Single site, specific population, cultural context |
+
+## Implications and Future Directions
+
+### Types of Implications
+
+```
+Theoretical implications:
+  "These findings support the [theory name] by demonstrating that
+   [specific contribution to theory]."
+
+Practical implications:
+  "These results suggest that [practitioners/policymakers] should
+   consider [actionable recommendation] when [context]."
+
+Methodological implications:
+  "Our comparison of [methods] suggests that [method recommendation]
+   is preferable when [condition], which may inform future study design."
+
+Future research directions:
+  "Three avenues for future research emerge from these findings:
+   (1) [replication in different context], (2) [testing the proposed
+   mechanism], and (3) [extending to related outcomes]."
+```
+
+## Conclusion Paragraph
+
+The final paragraph should leave readers with a clear takeaway. State the single most important finding and its significance in 2-3 sentences. Avoid introducing new information or hedging excessively in the conclusion. End on a forward-looking note that motivates continued research.

package/skills/writing/composition/introduction-writing-guide/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+---
+name: introduction-writing-guide
+description: "Guide to writing effective research paper introductions"
+metadata:
+  openclaw:
+    emoji: "pen"
+    category: "writing"
+    subcategory: "composition"
+    keywords: ["introduction writing", "research background", "literature gap"]
+    source: "wentor-research-plugins"
+---
+
+# Introduction Writing Guide
+
+Write compelling research paper introductions using the CARS (Create A Research Space) model with structured approaches for establishing context, identifying gaps, and motivating your study.
+
+## The CARS Model
+
+John Swales' Create A Research Space (CARS) model is the most widely used framework for structuring academic introductions. It consists of three rhetorical "moves":
+
+| Move | Purpose | Typical Length |
+|------|---------|---------------|
+| **Move 1**: Establishing a territory | Show the research area is important and active | 2-4 paragraphs |
+| **Move 2**: Establishing a niche | Identify a gap, question, or problem | 1-2 paragraphs |
+| **Move 3**: Occupying the niche | State what your paper does to address the gap | 1-2 paragraphs |
+
+## Move 1: Establishing a Territory
+
+### Strategy 1A: Claiming Centrality
+
+Signal that the topic is important, interesting, or well-established:
+
+```
+Pattern phrases:
+- "X has attracted considerable attention in recent years..."
+- "The role of X in Y is well established..."
+- "X is a fundamental aspect of..."
+- "Understanding X is critical for..."
+- "Recent advances in X have transformed..."
+```
+
+### Strategy 1B: Making Topic Generalizations
+
+Summarize the current state of knowledge:
+
+```
+Pattern phrases:
+- "Previous studies have demonstrated that..."
+- "It is widely accepted that X leads to Y..."
+- "Several approaches have been proposed to address X, including..."
+- "Research in this area has traditionally focused on..."
+```
+
+### Strategy 1C: Reviewing Previous Research
+
+Cite specific studies to build the scholarly context:
+
+```
+Example paragraph:
+"Smith et al. (2020) demonstrated that X improves Y by 30%.
+Building on this finding, Jones (2021) extended the approach to Z domain,
+reporting similar gains. Meanwhile, Chen and Lee (2022) proposed an
+alternative framework that addresses the scalability limitations of
+earlier methods."
+```
+
+**Tips for Move 1:**
+- Funnel from broad to narrow: start with the general field, then narrow to your specific topic
+- Cite 10-20 papers across Move 1 (varies by field)
+- Balance classic/foundational references with recent work
+- Use present tense for established knowledge, past tense for specific findings
+
+## Move 2: Establishing a Niche
+
+This is the most critical move. You must convince the reader that there is a problem worth solving.
+
+### Strategy 2A: Counter-Claiming (Challenging Previous Work)
+
+```
+Pattern phrases:
+- "However, these approaches suffer from..."
+- "Despite these advances, X remains poorly understood..."
+- "A major limitation of existing methods is..."
+- "These findings have been contradicted by..."
+```
+
+### Strategy 2B: Indicating a Gap
+
+```
+Pattern phrases:
+- "To date, no study has examined..."
+- "Little attention has been paid to..."
+- "The relationship between X and Y has not been explored..."
+- "A comprehensive analysis of X is still lacking..."
+```
+
+### Strategy 2C: Raising a Question
+
+```
+Pattern phrases:
+- "An open question is whether X can be applied to..."
+- "It remains unclear how X affects Y under conditions Z..."
+- "This raises the question of..."
+```
+
+### Strategy 2D: Continuing a Tradition
+
+```
+Pattern phrases:
+- "Following the approach of Smith (2020), we extend..."
+- "Building on recent advances in X, this paper..."
+```
+
+**Tips for Move 2:**
+- The gap must be clearly linked to the context established in Move 1
+- Do not criticize previous work too harshly; use hedging language
+- The gap must be specific enough that your paper can plausibly fill it
+
+## Move 3: Occupying the Niche
+
+### Strategy 3A: Outlining Purposes
+
+```
+Pattern phrases:
+- "In this paper, we propose..."
+- "The present study aims to..."
+- "This work introduces a novel approach to..."
+- "We address this gap by..."
+```
+
+### Strategy 3B: Announcing Principal Findings
+
+```
+Pattern phrases:
+- "Our results demonstrate that..."
+- "We show that X outperforms Y by Z%..."
+- "The key finding is that..."
+```
+
+### Strategy 3C: Indicating Article Structure
+
+```
+Example:
+"The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
+reviews related work. Section 3 describes our methodology. Section 4
+presents experimental results. Section 5 discusses implications and
+limitations. Section 6 concludes."
+```
+
+## Complete Introduction Template
+
+```markdown
+[Move 1A: Centrality claim - 1-2 sentences]
+[Topic] is a critical challenge in [field], with applications
+in [area 1], [area 2], and [area 3].
+
+[Move 1B-1C: Background and review - 2-3 paragraphs]
+Previous work has established that [known fact]. Smith et al. (2020)
+showed [finding 1]. Jones (2021) extended this to [finding 2].
+More recently, Chen (2022) demonstrated [finding 3].
+
+[Move 2: Gap identification - 1 paragraph]
+However, existing approaches have several limitations. First, [limitation 1].
+Second, [limitation 2]. To date, no work has addressed [specific gap].
+
+[Move 3A: Purpose statement - 1-2 sentences]
+In this paper, we propose [method/framework] to address [gap].
+Our approach differs from prior work in [key difference].
+
+[Move 3B: Key findings - 1-2 sentences]
+Our experiments on [benchmark] demonstrate that [main result],
+achieving [quantitative improvement] over the state of the art.
+
+[Move 3C: Structure outline - optional, 1-2 sentences]
+The rest of this paper is organized as follows...
+```
+
+## Common Mistakes to Avoid
+
+| Mistake | Problem | Fix |
+|---------|---------|-----|
+| Too broad opening | "Since the dawn of time..." | Start at the field level, not civilization level |
+| No clear gap | Reader does not understand why the paper is needed | State the gap explicitly in 1-2 sentences |
+| Overpromising | Claims too broad relative to actual contribution | Use hedging: "we investigate" not "we solve" |
+| Citing too few papers | Appears unaware of related work | Cite 15-25 papers in a typical introduction |
+| Too long | Buries the contribution | Aim for 1-2 pages (conference) or 2-4 pages (journal) |
+| Jargon overload | Inaccessible to non-specialist reviewers | Define key terms on first use |
+
+## Discipline-Specific Variations
+
+- **STEM**: Move 3B (findings preview) is common; quantitative results often stated in the introduction
+- **Social Sciences**: More extensive literature review in Move 1; theoretical framing is expected
+- **Humanities**: Move 2 often involves interpretive questions rather than empirical gaps; longer introductions are acceptable
+- **Medical/Clinical**: Often follows IMRAD strictly; hypothesis stated explicitly in Move 3