# Conclusion Writing

> Write or revise a paper's Conclusion using recipes distilled from dissecting top ML researchers' papers. Use when drafting or editing a conclusion, or when applying feedback to it. Applies the three-paragraph envoi shape, the reprise-not-report rule, the flip-the-shortfall move, the refutable-vista close, and mechanical checklists.

- Skill: `alexyskoutnev/conclusion-writing` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add alexyskoutnev/conclusion-writing`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/alexyskoutnev/conclusion-writing/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Docs & Writing
- Author: Alexyskoutnev (https://skillmd.com/u/alexyskoutnev)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/alexyskoutnev/conclusion-writing

---


# Conclusion section (master method)

Follow `conclusion-guide.md` in this folder, the complete plain-English method.
This file is the operating summary.
## Process

1. **Keep it a terse envoi.** One to three dense paragraphs of prose, never a
   bulleted future-work list. It is a landing, not a second results section. Name
   the section for its function, or keep a terse "Conclusion" and earn the
   terseness. Decide the heading before drafting.
2. **Re-name the system at the filled gap.** Open with one past-tense thesis
   sentence re-naming the system and its one mechanism. Open at the now-filled gap
   and widen to significance, the introduction run backwards.
3. **Reprise both halves of the evidence, zero new numbers.** Make the intro's
   promise concrete by reprising the load-bearing numbers, both the easy half and
   the hard half. Introduce no new number, table, or figure; every number is a
   reprise from Experiments.
4. **Recap the mechanism, do not re-report.** Name what the system does once; never
   re-walk the pipeline the Method already assembled or re-list the results table.
5. **Weld one flat scope clause, then flip the shortfall.** Carry a single flat
   limitation clause inside the recap; the full ledger stays in the Limitations
   subsection. Flip the structural shortfall into the predicted frontier,
   feature-not-a-bug, the hard half the paper set out to measure, and treat future
   work as payload, the named direction the paper opens.
6. **Land a refutable vista on the open problem.** Close on one sentence that widens
   from the artifact to the field, a measured, refutable insight that names the
   open problem the paper opens, not a summary and not hype.
## Core rules

- One to three paragraphs of prose; never a bulleted future-work list; a landing,
  not a second results section.
- Open past-tense, re-naming the system and its one mechanism; open at the filled
  gap and widen out, the intro run backwards.
- Recap the mechanism once; never re-report the experiments or re-list a table.
- Reprise the load-bearing numbers to make the promise concrete; introduce no new
  number, table, or figure.
- Each limitation is a named assumption welded to a remedy; the full ledger stays
  in the Limitations subsection; the close carries one flat scope clause.
- Flip a structural limit, feature-not-a-bug or an honest tradeoff ledger; treat
  future work as payload, the named frontier the paper opens.
- The last sentence is a vista, a measured, refutable insight, no hype, no em
  dashes.
- Credit neighbors, then contrast on exactly one axis; never bash.
- Prose axioms: sentences <= ~28 words, subject and verb early, zero "can"/"could",
  no bare This/These, no em dashes, numbers paired and attached to exact objects.
## Reference file

- `conclusion-guide.md`: full guide: term translations, the two-move envoi
  skeleton, three conclusion recipes with fill-in templates (limitations-as-
  doorways, the terse envoi, the two-move close), mechanical checklists including
  the "never in a conclusion" list, the assembly order, and a worked example on a
  toy system.