The Craft of Research, Fourth Edition

Argument Organization Reviser

Revise the structural organization of a research paper draft by applying a four-level top-down procedure — Frame (intro/conclusion alignment), Argument (section reasons + evidence ratios), Paper Organization (key-term threading + section signals), and Paragraphs (topic sentence placement + length). Use this skill whenever the user has a complete draft and asks to revise, reorganize, or strengthen its structure — not its prose style. Triggers include: user shares a draft paper and asks for structural feedback; user says sections feel disconnected or the argument is hard to follow; user's introduction and conclusion seem to contradict or not reinforce each other; user suspects their sections lack clear points or bury them in the middle; user cannot tell whether their evidence-to-reasoning ratio is balanced; user's paragraphs open with evidence rather than claims; user is preparing to submit and wants a final organizational pass. Also triggers on: "revise my structure," "does my argument hold together," "my advisor said the organization is unclear," "do my sections flow," "I need to check the coherence." This skill applies structural revision only — it does NOT revise prose style or sentence clarity (use prose-clarity-reviser for that), and does NOT rebuild an argument from scratch (use research-argument-builder for that).

Counterargument Handler

Anticipate, acknowledge, and respond to reader objections and alternative views in a research argument. Use this skill when the user has a draft argument or storyboard and needs to identify which objections readers will predictably raise, wants to decide which objections to acknowledge and which to set aside, needs vocabulary and sentence templates for introducing and responding to counterarguments without weakening their position, has discovered a flaw in their argument and does not know how to handle it honestly, is building a cause-and-effect argument and needs to address competing causes, has made claims with counterexamples that readers will invoke, uses key terms that readers may define differently and needs to address definitional scope, or wants to avoid either ignoring objections (seeming ignorant) or acknowledging too many (losing argumentative focus). This skill is the detailed companion to research-argument-builder — use it after assembling the argument's core structure (claim, reasons, evidence) and before drafting, to map every acknowledgment slot with a calibrated response strategy.

Data Visualization Selector

Select the correct graphic type (table, bar chart, line graph) for a dataset and rhetorical goal, then design and frame it to communicate evidence clearly and honestly. Use this skill whenever the user needs to present quantitative data in a research paper, report, thesis, presentation, or professional document and asks: which chart should I use, how should I visualize this data, how do I make this graphic clearer, is my chart misleading, how do I label or title a table or figure, or how do I introduce a graphic in text. Also triggers on: "my advisor said the table is confusing," "should I use a bar chart or line graph," "how do I make readers see my point in this figure," "is this graph ethical," "my chart looks amateurish," "the scale on my graph looks off," or any request to improve the visual communication of numerical evidence. Covers the full workflow: verbal-vs-visual decision → graphic type selection based on rhetorical effect → design simplification → framing with title, intro sentence, and labels → ethical integrity checks.

Prose Clarity Reviser

Revise dense, unclear prose into clear, readable sentences by applying four diagnostic principles — characters-as-subjects, actions-as-verbs, old-before-new information flow, and complexity-last sentence endings. Use this skill whenever the user shares a draft passage, paragraph, or document and asks you to make it clearer, more readable, easier to follow, less dense, less academic-sounding, or better written — even if they don't use those words. Also triggers on: "can you revise this," "this feels clunky," "my advisor said this is unclear," "make this flow better," "my writing sounds stilted," or any request to improve prose style in research papers, reports, essays, grant proposals, or professional documents. Apply all four principles end-to-end; return a revised version with brief annotations showing what changed and why.

Research Argument Builder

Build a complete, structured research argument from a framed problem — assembling all five elements (claim, reasons, evidence, acknowledgment/response, warrant) using the Claim→Reason→Evidence chain. Use this skill when the user has a research problem or framed question and needs to construct the supporting argument that justifies their answer, has a working thesis or claim but does not know how to assemble the reasons and evidence that make it hold, needs to identify which of the five claim types (fact, definition, cause, evaluation, policy) their main claim is and what kind of evidence each type demands, wants to evaluate whether their claim is specific and significant enough to anchor an argument, cannot tell whether a statement is a reason or evidence and keeps treating soft generalizations as hard data, has evidence but cannot determine whether it meets the quality standards (accurate, precise, sufficient, representative, authoritative) their readers will apply, needs to plan their argument visually using a storyboard (claim + reasons + evidence cards) before drafting, or wants to thicken a thin argument by identifying where acknowledgments and warrants are needed. This is the hub skill for research argumentation — use it before counterargument-handler (which handles detailed acknowledgment/response), warrant-tester (which tests whether reasons are genuinely relevant to claims), and research-paper-planner (which turns the completed argument structure into a paper outline).

Research Introduction Architect

Draft a complete research introduction and matching conclusion using the Context→Problem→Response architecture. Use this skill when the user has a framed research problem (condition + consequence) and needs to write or revise the opening and closing sections of a research paper; when an introduction exists but reads as a flat topic announcement instead of a problem-driven argument; when the user cannot decide whether to state the main point in the introduction (point-first) or withhold it for the conclusion (point-last) and needs to understand the trade-offs; when the first sentence of the introduction is a dictionary definition, a grand universal claim ("Throughout history…"), or a repetition of the assignment prompt; when the conclusion merely restates the introduction without adding new significance or calling for further research; when the user needs guidance on how much context to provide — neither too sketchy nor encyclopedic — based on the audience's prior knowledge; when the pacing of an introduction (fast vs. slow context setup) needs to match audience expertise level; or when the user wants a checked draft that correctly omits the context element (problem well-known) or consequence element (widely understood) rather than including them by default. This skill outputs a draft introduction and conclusion. It does NOT frame the research problem from scratch — use research-problem-framer for that.

Research Paper Planner

Build a storyboard-based plan for a research paper and turn it into a first draft. Use this skill when the user has assembled a research argument — a main claim with supporting reasons, evidence, and acknowledgments — and now needs to organize it into a coherent, reader-ready structure before writing. Triggers include: user has a thesis and evidence but does not know how to order the sections; user suspects their draft is organized as a research narrative (what they found first) rather than as an argument (what readers need); user's draft summary-hops across sources without asserting their own claim (patchwork writing); user wants a working introduction sketch to start drafting; user is staring at a blank page and cannot begin; user needs to decide where to state their main point — end of introduction or end of paper; user wants to know whether to order reasons by importance, complexity, familiarity, or contestability. This skill does NOT build the underlying argument from scratch — use research-argument-builder for claim, reason, evidence, acknowledgment, and warrant assembly before using this skill.

Research Problem Framer

Transform a research question into a fully framed research problem that readers recognize as worth solving, using the condition+consequence structure and the So What? cascade test. Use this skill when the user has a research question but cannot explain why readers should care about the answer, has completed the 3-step significance formula but the Step 3 consequence still feels abstract or weak, is writing an introduction and the reader's "So what?" objection keeps coming back, cannot tell whether their project is pure or applied research and whether that matters for their introduction, wants to verify that solving their conceptual problem actually serves a practical one, has a research question that feels personally interesting but lacks community relevance, is being asked by an advisor or reviewer "why does this matter?", needs to state a research problem in formal proposal or introduction language, wants to understand the difference between a research question (condition) and a research problem (condition + consequence) and why the problem frame is what goes in the introduction, or is building a research argument but keeps getting feedback that readers don't feel the stakes. This skill handles problem framing and consequence articulation; it does NOT formulate the initial research question (use research-question-formulator for that) or write the claim/thesis statement.

Research Question Formulator

Transform a broad topic into a focused, answerable research question with built-in significance using the 3-step sentence-completion formula (topic → direct question → So What?). Use this skill when the user has a subject or area of interest but no specific question, has a vague topic like "climate change" or "leadership" and needs to narrow it to something researchable, says they don't know what their paper is really about, is collecting too many notes without a clear direction, wants to know if their research question is worth asking, needs to test whether their topic is too broad (4-5 words = too broad), has a yes/no question that won't drive analysis, is asking a settled-fact question that doesn't open inquiry, wants to move from aimless reading to targeted evidence gathering, has a draft thesis but lost track of what question it answers, or is stuck at the beginning of a research project and doesn't know where to start — even if they never use the phrase "research question formulation." This skill handles question generation and significance testing; it does NOT write the thesis statement (use a separate skill) or plan the full argument structure.

Source Evaluator

Evaluate, triage, and actively read a set of research sources — books, articles, and online materials — by applying a dual-axis relevance-and-reliability screen, source-type skim protocols, and a two-pass active reading method that extracts data, arguments to respond to, and generative agreements and disagreements. Use this skill when you have a candidate source list and need to cut it to a workable set, when you need to verify that a source is credible before citing it, when you are reading sources to find a research problem or refine a hypothesis, when you need to take notes that accurately capture what a source argues without misrepresenting it, or when you must identify where sources agree and disagree so you can position your own argument within a field's conversation.

Source Incorporator

Incorporate quoted, paraphrased, and summarized sources into research writing by applying a 3-branch selection decision tree, 3 integration methods for quotations, and a 5-mechanism inadvertent plagiarism prevention checklist. Use this skill when drafting or revising a paper that uses sources and you need to decide whether to quote, paraphrase, or summarize a passage; when you need to weave quotations into your prose grammatically and meaningfully; when you need to make explicit to readers why evidence is relevant; when you must choose a citation style; or when you want to audit a draft for the five most common forms of inadvertent plagiarism before submitting.

Warrant Tester

Test the warrants in a research argument — the general principles that connect reasons to claims. Use this skill when a reader might accept a reason as true but still deny it is relevant to the claim, the argument contains a logical leap between a reason and a claim that no stated principle explains, the user needs to decide whether to state a warrant explicitly or leave it implicit, the argument needs to identify which type of warrant is being used (experience-based, authority-based, system/definitional, cultural, methodological) so it can be challenged or defended appropriately, the user is writing for an audience outside their field who will ask "but why does that reason matter to your claim?", a warrant appears to be too broad and needs qualification before it can survive challenge, competing warrants exist and the argument must show why its warrant should prevail, or the user suspects their argument is flawed but cannot identify where — surfacing the implicit warrant often reveals the problem. This skill depends on research-argument-builder (which assembles the full argument structure) and is typically used after reasons and claims have been identified but before final drafting.