Research-to-Essay Skill
Systematic workflow for producing publication-grade essays from research. Handles multi-source synthesis, narrative construction, voice calibration, and citation management.
Core Workflow
1. Intake & Planning
Parse user request to determine:
- Format target: Substack (1500-3000w), LinkedIn (150-300w), Academic (3000-8000w), or Executive Brief (500-1000w)
- Topic & angle: What question/claim is central?
- Essay structure: Which arc fits? (Persuasive, Exploratory, Diagnostic, Narrative-Conceptual, Synthesis)
- Consult
references/essay-structures.md for detailed arc patterns
- Voice profile: Which register? (Poetic Rigor, Professional Signal, Scholarly Precision, Surgical Clarity)
- Consult
references/voice-profiles.md for characteristics and forbidden patterns
Output from this phase: Research plan with target structure and voice
2. Research Execution
Conduct systematic research following source credibility hierarchy:
Search strategy:
- Start with primary sources (research papers, official data, technical documentation)
- Layer in expert analysis (domain specialists, academic reviews, investigative journalism)
- Add informed commentary (practitioner Substacks, conference talks) for applied context
- Avoid weak sources (social media speculation, content marketing, AI-generated farms)
Source quality requirements:
- Minimum 5-8 sources for persuasive essays
- Minimum 8-12 sources for exploratory essays
- Minimum 6-10 sources for diagnostic essays
- Always include strongest counter-argument sources
- Prioritize recent sources for rapidly-changing topics, foundational sources for stable concepts
Citation extraction:
- Record: title, URL, author, date, credibility tier (1-4), key claims
- Use
web_fetch to read full articles when web_search snippets insufficient
- For each source, extract 3-5 core claims explicitly
- Tag sources with themes for clustering
Consult references/research-patterns.md for:
- Source credibility hierarchy (Tiers 1-4)
- Research strategy by essay type
- Quality checks and anti-patterns
3. Synthesis
Organize research into thematic structure using one of two methods:
Method A: Manual thematic clustering (for simpler essays)
- Group claims by theme, not by source
- Identify convergent claims (multiple sources agree) → high confidence
- Identify divergent claims (sources disagree) → flag as tension
- Map claim dependencies (which claims require which others)
Method B: Script-assisted synthesis (for complex multi-source essays)
- Create JSON file with sources in required format (see script usage below)
- Run
scripts/synthesize_sources.py <sources.json> <output.md>
- Review generated synthesis report showing themes, convergence, tensions
Script format:
[
{
"title": "Source Title",
"url": "https://example.com",
"source_type": "primary",
"claims": ["Claim 1", "Claim 2"],
"themes": ["theme1", "theme2"],
"date": "2025-01-15",
"credibility_tier": 1
}
]
Synthesis output: Thematic map showing:
- Core themes with supporting sources
- Convergent evidence (agreement across sources)
- Divergent claims (tensions or debates)
- Gaps or under-supported areas
4. Drafting
Build essay iteratively using chosen structure template:
Template selection:
- Use
assets/essay-template.md for Substack/long-form
- Use
assets/linkedin-template.md for LinkedIn posts
- Adapt templates based on selected essay structure from Step 1
Drafting principles:
- Lead with strongest material: Hook in first paragraph, no throat-clearing
- Integrate sources naturally: Embed citations in argument flow, don't list separately
- Section logic: Each section should build necessarily on the previous
- Evidence before abstraction: Concrete examples, then pattern extraction
- Tension acknowledgment: Include counter-arguments and complications honestly
- Progressive depth: Can write full essay in one pass OR build iteratively:
- Pass 1: Outline with section headers
- Pass 2: Fill core argument sections
- Pass 3: Add evidence and citations
- Pass 4: Write intro/conclusion last
Voice application:
- Apply selected voice profile consistently (from Step 1)
- Check against forbidden patterns in
references/voice-profiles.md
- Calibrate tone dimensions: warmth, certainty, abstraction, humor
Citation style:
- Substack/LinkedIn: Inline hyperlinks on key phrases, footnotes for tangential details
- Academic: Numbered footnotes/endnotes with full bibliography
- Executive: Minimal citation, only for key data points
- Always cite: empirical claims, direct quotes, novel frameworks, counter-intuitive findings
- Never cite: common knowledge, your own synthesis, widely-known facts
5. Refinement
Quality assurance checks before delivery:
Structural review:
Voice & style check:
Evidence & citation check:
Platform-specific polish:
- LinkedIn: Paragraph breaks every 2-3 sentences, key phrases bolded, CTA included
- Substack: Section transitions smooth, footnotes formatted, metadata complete
- Academic: All citations complete, methodology transparent, limitations noted
6. Delivery
Present final essay as artifact with metadata:
Include:
- Complete essay in appropriate markdown format
- Word count and target audience notation
- Source list with tiers noted
- Key frameworks or concepts referenced
- Research date and any time-sensitivity notes
Optional additions based on context:
- Alternative versions for different platforms (e.g., Substack long-form + LinkedIn teaser)
- "Further Reading" section organized by theme
- Open questions or research gaps identified
- Suggested images or visual elements
When to Use References
Load these files as needed:
references/voice-profiles.md — When clarifying voice characteristics or checking against forbidden patterns
references/essay-structures.md — When uncertain about narrative arc or need structure template
references/research-patterns.md — When evaluating source quality, planning research strategy, or checking synthesis methodology
Load scripts when:
scripts/synthesize_sources.py — When dealing with 8+ sources requiring systematic thematic clustering
Quality Signals
High-quality output:
- Opens with genuine insight, not preamble
- Every paragraph necessary, no filler
- Sources integrated into argument, not appended
- Counter-arguments acknowledged, not buried
- Conclusion offers new lens, not recap
- Voice consistent and appropriate to format
- Citations complete and properly tiered
- Length justified by complexity, not padding
Red flags:
- Generic opening ("In today's world...")
- List structure when narrative needed
- No acknowledgment of complexity or tradeoffs
- All sources from same perspective
- Summary conclusion
- Inconsistent tone or register shifts
- Weak or missing citations for key claims
- Excessive length without proportional depth
Iteration Protocol
After delivering draft, typical refinement requests:
- "Make this more [voice]" → Reload
references/voice-profiles.md and adjust tone calibration
- "Add more evidence for X" → Return to research phase for specific claim
- "This section feels weak" → Restructure using
references/essay-structures.md patterns
- "Too long / too short" → Audit for filler vs. density, adjust scope
- "Challenge this argument" → Load strongest counter-sources, revise tensions section
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
- Don't search once and write—iterate research based on draft gaps
- Don't list sources separately from argument—integrate naturally
- Don't write intro first—write it last after you know what you said
- Don't ignore voice profile constraints—they prevent AI slop
- Don't cite weak sources when primary available—tier matters
- Don't pad length artificially—every paragraph must earn its keep
- Don't summarize in conclusion—reframe or extrapolate instead
1---2name: research-to-essay3description: Research-driven essay and post creation with thematic synthesis, citation management, and voice calibration. Use when creating Substack/LinkedIn posts, long-form essays synthesizing multiple sources, or publication-grade writing requiring web search, narrative arc, and proper attribution. Triggers include "research and write about [topic]" or "dig into this idea and write."4license: Complete terms in LICENSE.txt5---6
7# Research-to-Essay Skill
8
9Systematic workflow for producing publication-grade essays from research. Handles multi-source synthesis, narrative construction, voice calibration, and citation management.
10
11## Core Workflow
12
13### 1. Intake & Planning
14
15Parse user request to determine:
16- **Format target**: Substack (1500-3000w), LinkedIn (150-300w), Academic (3000-8000w), or Executive Brief (500-1000w)
17- **Topic & angle**: What question/claim is central?
18- **Essay structure**: Which arc fits? (Persuasive, Exploratory, Diagnostic, Narrative-Conceptual, Synthesis)
19 - Consult `references/essay-structures.md` for detailed arc patterns
20- **Voice profile**: Which register? (Poetic Rigor, Professional Signal, Scholarly Precision, Surgical Clarity)
21 - Consult `references/voice-profiles.md` for characteristics and forbidden patterns
22
23**Output from this phase:** Research plan with target structure and voice
24
25---
26
27### 2. Research Execution
28
29Conduct systematic research following source credibility hierarchy:
30
31**Search strategy:**
32- Start with **primary sources** (research papers, official data, technical documentation)
33- Layer in **expert analysis** (domain specialists, academic reviews, investigative journalism)
34- Add **informed commentary** (practitioner Substacks, conference talks) for applied context
35- Avoid weak sources (social media speculation, content marketing, AI-generated farms)
36
37**Source quality requirements:**
38- Minimum 5-8 sources for persuasive essays
39- Minimum 8-12 sources for exploratory essays
40- Minimum 6-10 sources for diagnostic essays
41- Always include strongest counter-argument sources
42- Prioritize recent sources for rapidly-changing topics, foundational sources for stable concepts
43
44**Citation extraction:**
45- Record: title, URL, author, date, credibility tier (1-4), key claims
46- Use `web_fetch` to read full articles when `web_search` snippets insufficient
47- For each source, extract 3-5 core claims explicitly
48- Tag sources with themes for clustering
49
50Consult `references/research-patterns.md` for:
51- Source credibility hierarchy (Tiers 1-4)
52- Research strategy by essay type
53- Quality checks and anti-patterns
54
55---
56
57### 3. Synthesis
58
59Organize research into thematic structure using one of two methods:
60
61**Method A: Manual thematic clustering** (for simpler essays)
62- Group claims by theme, not by source
63- Identify convergent claims (multiple sources agree) → high confidence
64- Identify divergent claims (sources disagree) → flag as tension
65- Map claim dependencies (which claims require which others)
66
67**Method B: Script-assisted synthesis** (for complex multi-source essays)
68- Create JSON file with sources in required format (see script usage below)
69- Run `scripts/synthesize_sources.py <sources.json> <output.md>`
70- Review generated synthesis report showing themes, convergence, tensions
71
72**Script format:**
73```json
74[
75 {
76 "title": "Source Title",
77 "url": "https://example.com",
78 "source_type": "primary",
79 "claims": ["Claim 1", "Claim 2"],
80 "themes": ["theme1", "theme2"],
81 "date": "2025-01-15",
82 "credibility_tier": 1
83 }
84]
85```
86
87**Synthesis output:** Thematic map showing:
88- Core themes with supporting sources
89- Convergent evidence (agreement across sources)
90- Divergent claims (tensions or debates)
91- Gaps or under-supported areas
92
93---
94
95### 4. Drafting
96
97Build essay iteratively using chosen structure template:
98
99**Template selection:**
100- Use `assets/essay-template.md` for Substack/long-form
101- Use `assets/linkedin-template.md` for LinkedIn posts
102- Adapt templates based on selected essay structure from Step 1
103
104**Drafting principles:**
105- **Lead with strongest material**: Hook in first paragraph, no throat-clearing
106- **Integrate sources naturally**: Embed citations in argument flow, don't list separately
107- **Section logic**: Each section should build necessarily on the previous
108- **Evidence before abstraction**: Concrete examples, then pattern extraction
109- **Tension acknowledgment**: Include counter-arguments and complications honestly
110- **Progressive depth**: Can write full essay in one pass OR build iteratively:
111 - Pass 1: Outline with section headers
112 - Pass 2: Fill core argument sections
113 - Pass 3: Add evidence and citations
114 - Pass 4: Write intro/conclusion last
115
116**Voice application:**
117- Apply selected voice profile consistently (from Step 1)
118- Check against forbidden patterns in `references/voice-profiles.md`
119- Calibrate tone dimensions: warmth, certainty, abstraction, humor
120
121**Citation style:**
122- **Substack/LinkedIn**: Inline hyperlinks on key phrases, footnotes for tangential details
123- **Academic**: Numbered footnotes/endnotes with full bibliography
124- **Executive**: Minimal citation, only for key data points
125- Always cite: empirical claims, direct quotes, novel frameworks, counter-intuitive findings
126- Never cite: common knowledge, your own synthesis, widely-known facts
127
128---
129
130### 5. Refinement
131
132Quality assurance checks before delivery:
133
134**Structural review:**
135- [ ] Hook is genuinely compelling (test: would you click "read more"?)
136- [ ] Stakes are established early (why should reader care?)
137- [ ] Each section advances the argument necessarily
138- [ ] Conclusion reframes rather than summarizes
139- [ ] Length appropriate to format (Substack: 1500-3000w, LinkedIn: 150-300w)
140
141**Voice & style check:**
142- [ ] Run `prose-polish` skill on draft
143- [ ] Check for forbidden patterns in selected voice profile
144- [ ] Verify tone consistency throughout
145- [ ] Confirm readability for target audience
146
147**Evidence & citation check:**
148- [ ] Every major claim has warrant (evidence or citation)
149- [ ] Primary sources used for factual claims
150- [ ] Counter-arguments acknowledged with credible sources
151- [ ] No citation decay (secondary sources when primary available)
152- [ ] Links functional, citations complete
153
154**Platform-specific polish:**
155- **LinkedIn**: Paragraph breaks every 2-3 sentences, key phrases bolded, CTA included
156- **Substack**: Section transitions smooth, footnotes formatted, metadata complete
157- **Academic**: All citations complete, methodology transparent, limitations noted
158
159---
160
161### 6. Delivery
162
163Present final essay as artifact with metadata:
164
165**Include:**
166- Complete essay in appropriate markdown format
167- Word count and target audience notation
168- Source list with tiers noted
169- Key frameworks or concepts referenced
170- Research date and any time-sensitivity notes
171
172**Optional additions based on context:**
173- Alternative versions for different platforms (e.g., Substack long-form + LinkedIn teaser)
174- "Further Reading" section organized by theme
175- Open questions or research gaps identified
176- Suggested images or visual elements
177
178---
179
180## When to Use References
181
182**Load these files as needed:**
183
184- `references/voice-profiles.md` — When clarifying voice characteristics or checking against forbidden patterns
185- `references/essay-structures.md` — When uncertain about narrative arc or need structure template
186- `references/research-patterns.md` — When evaluating source quality, planning research strategy, or checking synthesis methodology
187
188**Load scripts when:**
189- `scripts/synthesize_sources.py` — When dealing with 8+ sources requiring systematic thematic clustering
190
191---
192
193## Quality Signals
194
195**High-quality output:**
196- Opens with genuine insight, not preamble
197- Every paragraph necessary, no filler
198- Sources integrated into argument, not appended
199- Counter-arguments acknowledged, not buried
200- Conclusion offers new lens, not recap
201- Voice consistent and appropriate to format
202- Citations complete and properly tiered
203- Length justified by complexity, not padding
204
205**Red flags:**
206- Generic opening ("In today's world...")
207- List structure when narrative needed
208- No acknowledgment of complexity or tradeoffs
209- All sources from same perspective
210- Summary conclusion
211- Inconsistent tone or register shifts
212- Weak or missing citations for key claims
213- Excessive length without proportional depth
214
215---
216
217## Iteration Protocol
218
219After delivering draft, typical refinement requests:
220
221- **"Make this more [voice]"** → Reload `references/voice-profiles.md` and adjust tone calibration
222- **"Add more evidence for X"** → Return to research phase for specific claim
223- **"This section feels weak"** → Restructure using `references/essay-structures.md` patterns
224- **"Too long / too short"** → Audit for filler vs. density, adjust scope
225- **"Challenge this argument"** → Load strongest counter-sources, revise tensions section
226
227---
228
229## Anti-Patterns to Avoid
230
231- **Don't** search once and write—iterate research based on draft gaps
232- **Don't** list sources separately from argument—integrate naturally
233- **Don't** write intro first—write it last after you know what you said
234- **Don't** ignore voice profile constraints—they prevent AI slop
235- **Don't** cite weak sources when primary available—tier matters
236- **Don't** pad length artificially—every paragraph must earn its keep
237- **Don't** summarize in conclusion—reframe or extrapolate instead